2 Peter 1:1 Debate Whether Jesus is God or Not

[jgh7]

It has been discussed heavily John 1:1 in terms of whether Jesus is God or not. I'd like to hear the arguments for 2 Peter 1:1.

2 Peter 1:1 NKJV
Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

2 Peter 1:1 NWT
Simon Peter, a slave and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have acquired a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ:


What I have read in regards to this debate is from this site:
http://forananswer.org/2Peter/2Peter1_1.htm

This snippet stood out to me as it compared the grammar of this verse with other verses of 2 Peter which use the same grammar:

-------

Most apologetic debate on this verse has centered on the so-called Granville Sharp Rule. But even if the Granville Sharp Rule is not a valid rule of Greek grammar, or if it is, but 2 Peter 1:1 is not an example of it, there is substantial contextual evidence that both "God" and "Savior" modify Jesus Christ. First, there are three examples of a similar phrase in 2 Peter in which it is clear that one person is in view: namely, "our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" (1:11; 2:20; 3:18). The Greek of this phrase is identical to the Greek of "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ," with the exception of Lord/God (kuriou/theou). In 3:2, we find "the Lord and Savior," again signifying one person. It would seem inconceivable that Peter would intend two persons in one case and one person in all the others, when employing the same (or nearly the same, in the case of 3:2) Greek construction every time.
Further, Peter uses the phrase "our God and Father" in 1 Peter 1:3 (Greek: ho theos kai patêr). Again, one person, not two are in view. The differences between this phrase and those in 2 Peter are a matter of case (ho theos is nominative, whereas tou theou is genitive) and the pronoun "our" (Greek: hêmôn), neither of which is significant in determining the intended referent.

--------

What are the arguments against 2 Peter 1:1 being trinitarian as this snippet argues it is.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

I don't think we need to go into the Greek* for this because Peter explains himself in the very next verse

*for an analysis of the Greek see related posts (below) which include links to extensive discussions on the application of "sharps rule"

2 PETER 1:2

New Living Translation
May God give you more and more grace and peace as you grow in your knowledge of God and Jesus

King James 2000 Bible
Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

.... so here rather than speaking of two persons identified as one God Peter immediately identifies two individuals one he identifies as God and the other as Jesus "our Lord"; the implication in his introduction being our salvation is dependent on them both.

It seems reasonable to me that if the first verse is somewhat ambiguous, barring grammatical constraints to the contrary, to let the context (in this case, the next verse) enlighten us.





JW



RELATED POSTS

Does the Greek in 2 PETER 1:1 and ...TITUS 2:13 support the trinity
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 634#935634

Can all the other so-called "trinity proof texts" be debunked?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 594#936594

FURTHER READING : Sharp's rule
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... -rule.html





.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

2 Peter i. 1:
In vol. 5, p. 257 the respected The Expositor's Greek Testament says: "In the present case [Jude 1:4], however, the second noun (kupiov) belongs to the class of words which may stand without the article .... A similar doubtful case is found in Tit. ii. 13.... Other examples of the same kind are Eph. v. 5 ... 2 Thess. i: 12 ... 1 Tim. v. 21 (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 1) ... 2 Peter i. 1." [Except for kupiov, emphasis has been added by me.]

The Roman Catholic scholar, Karl Rahner, commenting on 2 Peter 1:1, says that ‘God’ “here is clearly separated from ‘Christ’.� - Theological Investigations, Karl Rahner, pp. 136, 137, Vol.1, 3rd printing: 1965.

(KJV) 2 Peter 1:1 "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"

Also compare:

(ASV) 2 Peter 1:1 "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ."

(Weymouth NT) 2 Peter 1:1 "Simon Peter, a bondservant and Apostle of Jesus Christ: To those to whom there has been allotted the same precious faith as that which is ours through the righteousness of our God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ."

The New Testament for English Readers, Commentary on the Entire New Testament by Henry Alford

2 Peter 1:1 "Next, in the words, 'of our God and [our] Saviour,' I would interpret, ... 'our God' of the Father and '[our] Saviour Jesus Christ' of the Son. Here, there is the additional consideration in favour of this view, that the Two are distinguished most plainly in the next verse: .... 'of God, and of Jesus our Lord'". [underline added.]

KJV, 2 Peter 1:2
Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

There are a very few 'Sharp's constructions' intended to show Jesus as God. the top two usually used by trinitarian apologists are (1) Titus 2:13 and (2) 2 Peter 1:1. Of course most trinitarians choose the interpretation which apparently shows God and Jesus as one person.

But even a number of trinitarian scholars and translators have actually chosen a different translation as being the originally-intended meaning, particularly in Titus 2:13.

We can find numerous translations of Titus 2:13 (probably the most-used scripture for this Sharp's Rule “proof�) which render it as referring to two persons.

Titus 2:13

Bible translations old and new:


13 lokynge for that blessed hope and appearynge of the glory of ye greate God and of oure Sauioure Iesu Christ - Coverdale

13 lokynge for þe blessed hope & appearinge of the glory of the greate God, & of oure sauioure Iesu Christ, - The Great Bible

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and appearing of that glorie of that mightie God, and of our Sauiour Iesus Christ, - Geneva

13 abidinge the blessid hope and the comyng of the glorie of the greet God, and of oure sauyour Jhesu Crist; - Wycliffe

13 lokinge for that blessed hope and glorious apperenge of ye myghty god and of oure savioure Iesu Christ - Tyndale

13 in expectation of that desirable happiness, the glorious appearance of the supreme God, and of our saviour Jesus Christ, - Mace

13 awaiting the blessed hope of the appearance of the Glory of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus, - Moffatt

13 expecting the blessed hope; namely, the appearing of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ; - The Living Oracles

13 looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ; - Noyes

13 waiting for the blessed hope, the glorious appearing of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus, - Riverside

13 looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, - Sawyer

(KJV) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious [F9] appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Note: 'F9 glorious...: Gr. the appearance of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ' - \ http://classic.studylight.org/desk/?l= ... &oq=&sr=1

(New American Bible - 1970) as we await our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus

(New American Bible - 1991) as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ

(New American Bible - 2010) as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ

(A New Translation in Plain English - Charles K. Williams) while we wait for the blessed thing we hope for, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ

And while we live this life we hope and wait for the glorious denouement of the Great God and of Jesus Christ our saviour. - Phillips

We are to be looking for the great hope and the coming of our great God and the One Who saves, Christ Jesus. - NLV

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and appearing of that glory of that mighty God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ. - GNV

"looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of the mighty God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ," - NMB

According to An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge, England, 1971, p. 109, at Titus 2:13, the sense "of the Great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ ... is possible in [New Testament] Greek even without the repetition [of the definite article before the second noun]."

Noted British NT scholar and trinitarian clergyman Henry Alford wrote: "I would submit that [a translation which clearly differentiates God from Christ at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s [Paul’s] way of writing: and I have therefore preferred it." - The Greek Testament, p. 421, Vol. 3.

“Of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ (tou megalou qeou kai swthrov hmwn Cristou Ihsou). …. According to A.V. [KJV] two persons are indicated, God and Christ. Revelations with others rend. of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus, thus indicating one person, and asserting the deity of Christ. I adopt the latter, although the arguments and authorities in favor of the two renderings are very evenly balanced. 155� - Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament.

"Some Trinitarians say that the grammar of Titus 2:13 forces the interpretation that Jesus is God because of the Granville Sharp rule of Greek grammar. That is not the case, however. The Granville Sharp rule has been debated and successfully challenged. When Scripture refers to “our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,� it can indeed be referring to two separate beings: the “Great God,� and the “Savior,� Jesus Christ. The highly regarded Trinitarian Henry Alford gives a number of reasons as to why the grammar of the Greek does not force the interpretation of the passage to make Christ God (Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, Moody Press, Chicago, 1958, Vol. 3, entry on Titus 2:13 ). [For more on the Granville Sharp rule, see commentary on 2 Peter 1:1]." - Revised English Version Commentary - Titus 2:13.

And, finally (I think) concerning Titus 2:13, the steadfastly trinitarian The Expositor's Greek Testament (vol. 4, p. 195) says specifically of Titus 2:13:

"On the whole, then, we decide in favour of the R.V.m. in the rendering of this passage, appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. The grammatical argument - [Sharp's Rule] - is too slender to bear much weight, especially when we take into consideration not only the general neglect of the article in these epistles but the omission of it before σωτὴ� ['savior'] in I Tim. i. I, iv. 10 [1:1; 4:10]."

[polonius]

It has been discussed heavily John 1:1 in terms of whether Jesus is God or not. I'd like to hear the arguments for 2 Peter 1:1.

2 Peter 1:1 NKJV
Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

2 Peter 1:1 NWT
Simon Peter, a slave and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have acquired a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ:


What I have read in regards to this debate is from this site:
http://forananswer.org/2Peter/2Peter1_1.htm

This snippet stood out to me as it compared the grammar of this verse with other verses of 2 Peter which use the same grammar:

-------

Most apologetic debate on this verse has centered on the so-called Granville Sharp Rule. But even if the Granville Sharp Rule is not a valid rule of Greek grammar, or if it is, but 2 Peter 1:1 is not an example of it, there is substantial contextual evidence that both "God" and "Savior" modify Jesus Christ. First, there are three examples of a similar phrase in 2 Peter in which it is clear that one person is in view: namely, "our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" (1:11; 2:20; 3:18). The Greek of this phrase is identical to the Greek of "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ," with the exception of Lord/God (kuriou/theou). In 3:2, we find "the Lord and Savior," again signifying one person. It would seem inconceivable that Peter would intend two persons in one case and one person in all the others, when employing the same (or nearly the same, in the case of 3:2) Greek construction every time.
Further, Peter uses the phrase "our God and Father" in 1 Peter 1:3 (Greek: ho theos kai patêr). Again, one person, not two are in view. The differences between this phrase and those in 2 Peter are a matter of case (ho theos is nominative, whereas tou theou is genitive) and the pronoun "our" (Greek: hêmôn), neither of which is significant in determining the intended referent.

--------

What are the arguments against 2 Peter 1:1 being trinitarian as this snippet argues it is.

RESPONSE:

First of all these passages were not written by Peter but were written long after his death.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter

"The date of composition has proven to be very difficult to determine. Commentaries and reference books have placed 2 Peter in almost every decade from AD 60 to 160. Taken literally, it would have been written between 65–68 AD because Peter was martyred around 68 AD by Nero and also because Peter references his approaching death in 2 Peter 1:14 ("since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me").[3]


"Two sides of the Papyrus Bodmer VIII. This Papyrus today is the oldest source to the Second Epistle of Peter
Most biblical scholars have concluded Peter is not the author, considering the epistle pseudepigraphical.[4][5] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[6]

"The questions of authorship and date are closely related. For Petrine authorship to be authentic, it must have been written prior to Peter's death in c. AD 65–67. The letter refers to the Pauline epistles and so must post-date at least some of them, regardless of authorship, thus a date before 60 is improbable. Further, it goes as far to name the Pauline epistles as "scripture"—the only time a New Testament work refers to another New Testament work in this way—implying that it postdates them by some time.[7] Scholars consider the epistle to be written between c. AD 100–150[8] and so contend that it is pseudepigraphical.

And the passage "righteousness of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ" refers to two different individuals.

The reply was written by Polonius and Ralph. See, two different writers.

[Hawkins]

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

More often the Bible has two approaches in terms of who Jesus is.

1. who you should believe He is in order to be saved, in accordance to the New Covenant
The New Covenant defines where your faith should go in order to be saved. In this respect, He's the Son of God and He's the Christ.

This is the situation specially for the Jews, as it's difficult for the Jews to accept that Jesus is God.

2. who Jesus actually is, disregarding our salvation and the New Covenant
This is in an absolute sense about who He really is. He's God the Son in His Trinity. He's God as called by His direct disciple and eyewitness Thomas. The secrets of Kingdom of Heaven are given to His disciples but not you. It means that you won't know better than Thomas.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

More often the Bible has two approaches in terms of who Jesus is.

1. who you should believe He is in order to be saved, in accordance to the New Covenant
The New Covenant defines where your faith should go in order to be saved. In this respect, He's the Son of God and He's the Christ.

This is the situation specially for the Jews, as it's difficult for the Jews to accept that Jesus is God.

2. who Jesus actually is, disregarding our salvation and the New Covenant
This is in an absolute sense about who He really is. He's God the Son in His Trinity. He's God as called by His direct disciple and eyewitness Thomas.

NOTE: The " doubting Thomas" story was written by one non-witness 95 years after the fact to make converts. Do you believe it?

The secrets of Kingdom of Heaven are given to His disciples but not you. It means that you won't know better than Thomas.

RESPONSE: Actually they are told to many gullible people who'll believe it.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 6 by polonius]

Thomas' reply was not an address to Jesus. We know this because the term used by him for 'Lord' is not the vocative (kurie), but the nominative (kurios). The probability is that it is a praise to the Father in heaven. Other evidence can be found here:


http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... ygod.html and here:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... ress.html

[Overcomer]

[Replying to post 7 by tigger2]

To tigger2:

Where did you study Greek? At what level did you study? Who were your professors? What textbooks did you use?

Thanking you in advance for your reply. O.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 8 by Overcomer]

Please answer my oft-repeated much earlier request to you: see the end of posts 8 and 9 in https://debatingchristianity.com/forum ... p?t=34270

[Overcomer]

[Replying to post 8 by Overcomer]

Please answer my oft-repeated much earlier request to you: see the end of posts 8 and 9 in https://debatingchristianity.com/forum ... p?t=34270

I'd forgotten that thread even existed! LOL! You have to understand that I am an infrequent visitor here. I can go for weeks and even months -- and one time even years -- without visiting this site and I rarely remember what I posted where. And next Monday classes start up again so you won't see me much for the next while.

But you haven't answered my question about where you studied Greek, who your instructors were and what textbooks you used, etc. Surely you have no objection to sharing your credentials with us, do you?

At any rate, let me address the topic of Thomas calling Jesus his "Lord and God".

Here’s the thing: A nominative can be used vocatively (called the nominative of address). For information about it, check out Dan Wallace's The Basics of New Testament Syntax, page 13 of the 2000 edition. When people address God directly, they use it much of the time. In fact, we see an example of it right there in John 20:28 where Thomas says, “My Lord and my God�. “God� is “Θεός /theos�, in the nominative and used vocatively in that verse. There are other New Testament examples of this including, Luke 18:11, where the tax collector calls out to God. The nominative “� Θεός� is used:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/18-11.htm

If you look at the Septuagint, that is, the Greek version of Scripture written before Christ as even born, you will see that God is addressed, using the nominative vocatively, many times. Here is just one example from Psalm 44:3:

“O, my God� – in Greek, it’s � Θεός μου – it’s written in the nominative but used as a vocative, that is, as a direct address to God. See here:

https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-t ... 24&page=21

If JWs believe that the vocative has to be used in verse 28 to show that Thomas was speaking to Jesus, then it seems to me they have the same problem with it and the word "God" not being in the vocative either if Thomas is addressing God.

Actually, it’s the fact that the vocative of “Lord� (kurie) was NOT used that supports the interpretation that Thomas was addressing Jesus as God. As one traditionally addressed God using the nominative form vocatively, he is showing us that Jesus IS God and, therefore, he’s addressing him as he would God, using the nominative vocatively with “Lord� as well as “God�. As Murray J. Harris notes in Jesus As God, the vocatival ‘kurios’ is “more formal and respectful, more sonorous and more emphatic in tone and therefore would be appropriate in addressing his Lord.� (Harris, p. 108)

And if you look at the context, it’s clear that Thomas is addressing Jesus throughout it. The idea that he suddenly spoke to God in heaven in the midst of his conversation with Christ is really stretching things. The verses emphasize Thomas’ relationship with Jesus.

Harris has a chapter devoted to John 20:28 in his book. He looks at all the statements about Jesus being God by looking at the Greek vocabulary and usage. He outlines the various opinions thoroughly and determines why we can be certain that Thomas was acknowledging Jesus as God using more valid arguments than I have time to list here.