29.03.2013 Views

JESUS CHRIST: GOD-MAN - Vital Christianity

JESUS CHRIST: GOD-MAN - Vital Christianity

JESUS CHRIST: GOD-MAN - Vital Christianity

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

193<br />

The grammatical construction here is almost identical to that of Titus 2:13 that we have<br />

previously looked at. The New World Translation again has arbitrarily inserted the bracketed<br />

word "the" before "Savior" to differentiate between "God" and "Savior"—whom even they admit<br />

to be Jesus.<br />

This violates Sharp's law since there is no Greek article before the words "Savior Jesus<br />

Christ." This absence of the Greek article before "Savior" is found elsewhere in the letter as Peter<br />

uses a similarly constructed phrase, "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pe 1:11; 3:18).<br />

In other instances in 2 Peter where the word "Savior" appears it is clearly a reference to<br />

Jesus (1:11; 2:20; 3:2,18). Thus Peter is using the term "Savior," which is an Old Testament<br />

name for Jehovah, and is applying it to Jesus.<br />

A. T. Robertson, considered by many to have been the greatest English-speaking Greek<br />

scholar insisted that "one person, not two, is in mind in 2 Peter 1:1."12<br />

Biblical scholar William Barclay believes that this verse is one of the strongest statements<br />

in the entire Bible that "Jesus is God."13 He also points out that all the newer translations render<br />

the last phrase<br />

". . . the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ."<br />

Other examples where Sharp's law applies: Lk 15:9; Ac 3:14; 17:18; Php 4:20; Jas 3:9;<br />

1 Th 3:11; 2 Pe 2:20.<br />

● "He who is over all, God blessed forever" (Ro 9:5).<br />

The issue is whether the word "He" which is obviously a reference to Christ is to be<br />

identified with "God" or whether they are to be understood as two separate persons.<br />

Biblical scholar C. K. Barrett argues that the most logical interpretation is that they are<br />

one and the same person. He makes the point that to see these references as pointing to two<br />

different persons we are forced to see the doxology with which the paragraph concludes as<br />

independent of the preceding sentence.<br />

This is grammatically and stylistically improbable. Pauline doxologies are almost always<br />

connected with the context and do not stand (as recommended by the Jehovah's Witnesses) in<br />

complete asyndeton (omission of conjunctions). When Paul makes exception to this rule such as<br />

in Romans 1:25 and 2 Corinthians 11:31 where the doxologies are addressed to God the Father,<br />

they arise out of the preceding words. Furthermore, if Paul wished to say, "Blessed be God," he<br />

would have placed the word "blessed" first in the sentence, which he does not do.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!