In this first installment of our class based on How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, we emphasized that obedience is the reason for studying the Bible in the first place. We looked at the steps involved in going from simple reading comprehension to obedience to the truth of God’s Word.
We also considered a number of points raised in Chapter 1 of the Fee & Stuart text:
- We noted an important fact about the nature of Scripture: it was not written to us, but it was written for us.
- We discussed what we mean by exegesis: careful, rigorous study of the text to get at the meaning the author intended.
- Finally, we discussed what we mean by hermeneutics: the rules that govern the way we understand the intended meaning of the text — especially as it relates to our lives.
The class goes on hiatus next week so that we can hear a special presentation on missions. In two weeks (January 28), Eric Farr will resume our study and teach on the tools you can use — and even need — to study the Bible well.
A simple word which often confounds me as to how to interpret it is the conjunction “and”. When we get to how to do a word study, can you cover this one as an example? It seems that it can either be used to make two things equivalent or can be used to mean something like ‘in addition to’? For example, 2 Peter 1:1 says “. . . our God and Savior Jesus Christ . . .” Does the word “and” here show that Peter is attaching both descriptors to the name “Jesus Christ”? If so, then this is a very clear statement in support of the Trinity. If not, then I suppose Peter is talking about the righteousness of each (God the Father and Jesus Christ) separately.
Jeff,
Let me refine your question — the verse might inform a discussion of the Trinity, but specifically, it is the divinity of Christ that is directly addressed by this verse. The Holy Spirit doesn’t really come into play.
Anyway, first: let’s see what multiple English translations yield.
BibleGateway.com lets you see multiple translations side-by-side; the link I’ve given here shows the ESV, NIV, and NASB.
* ESV: “…our God and Savior Jesus Christ…”
* NIV: “…our God and Savior Jesus Christ…”
* NASB: “…our God and Savior, Jesus Christ…”
Note that the NASB adds a comma — the translators of the NASB (which is generally regarded as the most literal English translation out there) evidently strongly regarded the conjoined words “God” and “Savior” as descriptive of “Jesus Christ.”
Second, let’s see what the Greek gives up. I’m no Greek scholar, but let’s see what’s there…
I use this website at Crosswalk.com for word study based on the original languages.
If you go there and search on 2 Peter 1 (you have a choice of KJV or NASB; I use the latter for this purpose), you’ll get the interlinear Greek and NASB text.
Each word there is clickable, so you can navigate directly to the lexicon entry for each Greek word and its NASB counterpart.
In this case, the Greek reads (in transliterated English letters) “theou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou,” which literally means “our God and Savior Jesus Christ.”
So to answer your question (speaking as one who has never formally studied Greek), I think my answer is a fairly confident yes, but I have to admit to ignorance about the rules of Greek grammar there — and that could be important.
Taken together, I think we are within our rights to say that Peter testifies to the divinity of Christ.
All because of a little word, “and”…
I am no expert, but as someone who has formally studied Greek, I might be able to help out here.
In the case of “and” (“kai” in Greek), you have to look also at whether or not the nouns being joined together have the article “the” or not in order to tell how the “and” is functioning. In the case of 2 Peter 1:1, the construction is:
tou theou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou
article-noun-pronoun-“and”-noun-proper name
This construction follows the Granville Sharp Rule, which states (abbreviated here for simplicity) that when “kai” connects two nouns which are personal, singular, and non-proper, and the article precedes ONLY the first of these nouns, then the nouns refer to the same person.
In 2 Peter 1:1, we have an article-noun-“kai”-noun construction, and “God” and “Savior” are both personal descriptors, singular, and are not proper names, so the Granville Sharp Rule applies. The pronoun “hemon” does not affect the rule. The proper noun “Jesus Christ” is in apposition to the whole “God and Savior” construction.
Thus by the Granville Sharp Rule, Peter is equating “God” with “Savior.” They refer to the same person. Furthermore, the proper name “Jesus Christ” is in apposition to “God and Savior,” and therefore “Jesus Christ” further identifies who is “God and Savior.” Peter indeed affirms the deity of Christ.
Thanks Jason!
So if Peter had written something like “tou theou hemon kai tou soteros Iesou Christou,” that would indicate Peter draws a distinction between God and Jesus… correct?
It seems like the article “tou” doesn’t translate into English —
If that’s the case, then there’s no way to really answer Jeff’s question about what “and” means without being able to unpack the Greek (or consulting those who can, in person or through commentaries). Would you agree?
Thanks again for your help — it’s much appreciated!
Good question. Unfortunately, it’s not quite as simple as we’d like. If Peter had preceded BOTH nouns (“God” AND “Savior”) with the article, then there is no particular rule which applies. In other words, Peter could have meant that both nouns refer to the same person, or Peter could have meant that each noun refers to a different person. You would have to look at the context to decide.
For example, in Revelation 4:11, both “Lord” and “God” are personal, singular, non-proper nouns, but BOTH nouns are preceded by the article in the Greek:
article-“Lord”-“kai”-article-“God”
Even though this construction does not follow the Granville Sharp rule because of the use of the second article, it is still clear from the context that “Lord” and “God” are one and the same person being addressed.
On the other hand, in Acts 26:30, for example, we have the same basic construction with “king” and “governor”:
article-“king”-“kai”-article-“governor”
This construction again meets the requirements for the Granville Sharp rule except for the use of the second article. In this case, however, the nouns “king” and “governor” clearly refer to two different people, even though the grammatical construction is basically the same as Rev 4:11, in which the nouns refer to the same person.
So if the requirements for the Granville Sharp rule are not met, then you must let context decide whether the nouns refer to the same person or to different persons. If the requirements for the Granville Sharp rule are met, however, you can be certain that the author is referring to the same person with both nouns. Fortunately, Peter chose to use the Granville Sharp construction, so we can be confident that he affirmed the deity of Christ in 2 Peter 1:1. (Though of course he did not call it the “Granville Sharp construction.”)
In general, the article does not work in Greek in the same way that it works in English. As a result, many times English translations have to leave out the article which is present in the Greek. Conversely, many times English translations have to insert an article where there is none in the Greek. Even the most “literal” translations (like NASB) have to make some adjustments like this, because Greek and English are such different languages. Otherwise, our English translations would be as difficult to read as the Greek itself!
I agree that the Greek is very helpful in answering Jeff’s question about “and” in 2 Peter 1:1, and that the only way to get such an absolute answer to his particular question would be to consult someone with knowledge of the Greek (though commentaries, etc.) On the other hand, I would dissuade anyone from thinking that they need Greek to study the Bible seriously. People can go a long way without the Greek (or Hebrew or Aramaic), if they learn basic hermeneutical principles. I am excited to see that people are studying Fee and Stuart’s book; I have not read this particular book myself, but I am familiar with these authors, and I have read other similar hermeneutics books and found them to be extremely helpful. Hermeneutical principles continue to be invaluable even after one has learned the original languages.
I do see one way that Jeff’s question could be answered by someone willing to look at the Greek text (such as on crosswalk.com) but who does not have detailed knowledge of the Greek language. The answer is to look at the context and see if Peter uses the same construction anywhere else in a way that is clear. First, scan the English text and see if there is any similar wording that might be similar in the Greek. We see in 1:11, “our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.” This phrase is likely to be the same construction in the Greek (since it is so similar in the English), and we know from the context of 1:11 that both “Lord” and “Savior” refer to the same person in that verse. Next, we check the Greek to see if our hunch was correct, and indeed it is: the construction in 1:11 is indeed the same as 1:1 (as we suspected from the English), except that “Lord” is used instead of “God.” We therefore have good reason to believe that Peter meant “God” and “Savior” to refer to the same person in 1:1, just as “Lord” and “Savior” clearly refer to the same person in 1:11. Thus the context gives us a pretty good answer, even if we can’t be as certain as if we had known the Granville Sharp rule. And checking the Greek itself helps us to make sure we are comparing apples to apples.
I hope this helps!
“Though of course [Peter] did not call it the ‘Granville Sharp construction.'” You make me smile.
Wow, Jason, thanks for the careful discussion — looks like you invested some time on that and I’m grateful.
Let me highlight one thing you said:
That’s a real encouragement to me too. We press on in pursuit of the sharpest, most potent skills we can acquire, but we have to appreciate the grace we receive in external resources — like students of Greek who show up in blog comments!
Thank you both for your comments and time you spent in replying. I’ll be sure to tuck this hermeneutical nugget away for when I encounter the mysterious “and” again. 🙂