Apologetics · FaithLogic
Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 — "Our God and Saviour Jesus Christ"
Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 both call Jesus "our God and Saviour" in the same Greek construction: the + noun + and + noun (no second article). Granville Sharp argued in 1798 that this construction, with the right kind of nouns, always means the two nouns describe one person. The construction, its limits, the objections, and the way the Greek fathers translated these verses are below.
The Construction and Its Limits
What the rule actually claims — and what it does not
Sharp's canon: when a single definite article governs two nouns joined by kai ("and"), and both nouns are (1) singular, (2) personal, and (3) common nouns, not proper names, the two nouns refer to the same person.
The limits matter, because opponents attack the rule where it does not apply:
— It is disputed for plural constructions — and Wallace, its leading modern defender, grants this.
— It does not apply when either noun is a proper name ("Paul and Timothy").
— It does not apply to impersonal nouns.
Titus 2:13 (tou megalou theou kai sōtēros) and 2 Peter 1:1 (tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros) meet all three criteria exactly: "God" and "Saviour" are singular, personal, common nouns. "Jesus Christ" that follows is the name identifying the person, not one of the two nouns in the construction. In precisely this construction the rule holds without a clear NT exception — Daniel Wallace's full study (Granville Sharp's Canon and Its Kin, 2009) surveyed the New Testament and thousands of extra-biblical texts and found the singular-personal-common construction consistent.
The limits matter, because opponents attack the rule where it does not apply:
— It is disputed for plural constructions — and Wallace, its leading modern defender, grants this.
— It does not apply when either noun is a proper name ("Paul and Timothy").
— It does not apply to impersonal nouns.
Titus 2:13 (tou megalou theou kai sōtēros) and 2 Peter 1:1 (tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros) meet all three criteria exactly: "God" and "Saviour" are singular, personal, common nouns. "Jesus Christ" that follows is the name identifying the person, not one of the two nouns in the construction. In precisely this construction the rule holds without a clear NT exception — Daniel Wallace's full study (Granville Sharp's Canon and Its Kin, 2009) surveyed the New Testament and thousands of extra-biblical texts and found the singular-personal-common construction consistent.
The two real objections
Objection 1 — proper names are exempt (Winer, 19th c.). The argument: since "Jesus Christ" follows, the whole phrase is really name-like and the rule is suspended. Response: the rule operates on the two nouns joined by kai ("God," "Saviour"), both common nouns; "Jesus Christ" is in apposition, telling us who the God-and-Saviour is. Removing the appositional name does not change the grammar of the construction. A.T. Robertson (Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 1914) and Wallace both reject the exemption for this construction.
Objection 2 — "God and Saviour" was a stock ruler-cult title. Adolf Deissmann showed that Hellenistic rulers were hailed as "god and saviour" (theos kai sōtēr) as a fixed formula. Response: this cuts the other way. Jewish and Christian writers deliberately avoided ruler-cult language for anyone but God. For Paul writing to Titus and Peter opening his letter to reach for the imperial "god and saviour" formula and attach it to Jesus is a pointed claim, not an accident — and Deissmann himself did not dispute that in these verses one person, Christ, is meant.
Objection 2 — "God and Saviour" was a stock ruler-cult title. Adolf Deissmann showed that Hellenistic rulers were hailed as "god and saviour" (theos kai sōtēr) as a fixed formula. Response: this cuts the other way. Jewish and Christian writers deliberately avoided ruler-cult language for anyone but God. For Paul writing to Titus and Peter opening his letter to reach for the imperial "god and saviour" formula and attach it to Jesus is a pointed claim, not an accident — and Deissmann himself did not dispute that in these verses one person, Christ, is meant.
Two supporting points
Titus 2:13 — one appearing. The verse awaits "the appearing (epiphaneian — singular) of the glory of our great God and Saviour." If "God" (Father) and "Saviour" (Jesus) were two persons, the church would await two appearings. One appearing, one person.
2 Peter 1:1 vs 1:2. In 1:1 Peter writes "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" (one article, Sharp construction). In the very next verse he writes "the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord" — two nouns, each with its own article, two persons. Peter clearly knew how to distinguish them; in 1:1 he chose not to.
2 Peter 1:1 vs 1:2. In 1:1 Peter writes "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" (one article, Sharp construction). In the very next verse he writes "the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord" — two nouns, each with its own article, two persons. Peter clearly knew how to distinguish them; in 1:1 he chose not to.
How the Greek Fathers Translated the Verse
The fathers read "the great God" as Christ
Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks 1 quotes Titus 2:13 of the Word — "the great God and Saviour" — as he urges pagans to turn to Christ.
John Chrysostom, Homily 5 on Titus (on 2:11–14): "'the appearing of the glory of the great God' — here he calls Christ 'the great God.' … Where are those who say the Son is inferior to the Father?" A native Greek speaker, reading the construction as Sharp later described it, without any 18th-century rule to guide him.
Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius repeatedly cites Titus 2:13 as "our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ" against the Arian party.
Ambrose, On the Christian Faith 5.16 cites the verse the same way. The reading is the constant one in the Greek and Latin fathers; the alternative punctuation that separates "God" from "Saviour" here is a modern proposal, not an ancient one.
John Chrysostom, Homily 5 on Titus (on 2:11–14): "'the appearing of the glory of the great God' — here he calls Christ 'the great God.' … Where are those who say the Son is inferior to the Father?" A native Greek speaker, reading the construction as Sharp later described it, without any 18th-century rule to guide him.
Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius repeatedly cites Titus 2:13 as "our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ" against the Arian party.
Ambrose, On the Christian Faith 5.16 cites the verse the same way. The reading is the constant one in the Greek and Latin fathers; the alternative punctuation that separates "God" from "Saviour" here is a modern proposal, not an ancient one.
Is the text itself secure?
Yes — Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 have no significant manuscript variant; the debate is purely grammatical. For the verses that do have textual questions (Acts 20:28, John 1:18, 1 Timothy 3:16), see Textual Variants in the Deity Verses.
💡 Granville Sharp — Reasonable Summary"Sharp's rule holds for one specific construction — single article + two singular, personal, common nouns joined by kai. It is disputed for plurals and does not touch proper names, and opponents attack it there; but Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 meet every criterion. Wallace's full study (2009) found the construction consistent in and outside the NT. The 'proper name' exemption fails (the rule operates on 'God' and 'Saviour,' not on the appositional 'Jesus Christ'); the 'ruler-cult formula' objection cuts the other way (Jewish writers avoided that language for anyone but God). And the Greek fathers — Clement, Chrysostom (Hom. Titus 5), Gregory of Nyssa — read 'the great God' as Christ without needing any rule."
This is part of the FaithLogic study library — the biblical, historical and manuscript case that Jesus is God, with every claim linked to its source. Open the interactive version for search, cross-references, read-aloud, and the full library.