I extracted this quote from GotQuestions.org; namely, because it uses the phrase "common nouns." "In simpler terms, the Granville Sharp Rule says that when two singular common nouns are used to describe a person, and those two nouns are joined by an additive conjunction, and the definite article precedes the first noun but not the second, then both nouns refer to the same person. This principle of semantics holds true in all languages." (Retrieved from: www.gotquestions.org/Granville-Sharp-Rule.html). Thanks for your reply.
@@LandmarkBaptists The application of Granville Sharp's rule in Acts 2:23 is a matter of debate among scholars. Granville Sharp's rule states that when two singular nouns share the definite article and are joined by the conjunction "and," both nouns refer to the same person or thing. In Acts 2:23, the Greek text says: τὸν προκεχειρισμένον βουλῇ καὶ προγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ Literally: "the one foreordained by the counsel and foreknowledge of God" Some argue that Granville Sharp's rule applies here, meaning that "counsel" (βουλῇ) and "foreknowledge" (προγνώσει) refer to the same concept, emphasizing the unity of God's plan. However, others argue that the rule does not apply in this case because the two nouns are not strictly synonymous and have distinct meanings. "Counsel" refers to God's will and purpose, while "foreknowledge" refers to His prior knowledge of events. Arguments for applying the rule: Grammatical structure: The grammatical structure of the Greek text seems to meet the requirements of Granville Sharp's rule. Emphasis on the unity of God's plan: Applying the rule would emphasize the unity of God's plan and His sovereignty over events. Arguments against applying the rule: Semantic distinction: The two nouns have distinct meanings and are not strictly synonymous. Other possible interpretations: The text can be interpreted without needing to apply Granville Sharp's rule. Conclusion: There is no clear consensus among scholars on whether Granville Sharp's rule applies in Acts 2:23. The interpretation of the verse will depend on the theological stance and understanding of Greek grammar of each interpreter. While a definitive list of scholars who oppose the application of Granville Sharp's rule specifically to Acts 2:23 is difficult to compile, several notable figures have expressed reservations or offered alternative interpretations of the passage that do not rely on the rule. These include: Murray J. Harris: In his article "Sharp Redivivus? A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule," Harris specifically addresses Acts 2:23, arguing that the context and theological implications of the passage do not support the application of the rule. He suggests that "counsel" and "foreknowledge" are distinct attributes of God, not a single concept. I. Howard Marshall: In his commentary on Acts, Marshall acknowledges the possibility of applying Granville Sharp's rule to Acts 2:23 but ultimately concludes that the two nouns ("counsel" and "foreknowledge") refer to distinct aspects of God's plan. F.F. Bruce: In his commentary on Acts, Bruce also recognizes the potential application of the rule but suggests that the two nouns are not necessarily synonymous and can be understood as referring to different aspects of God's activity. Richard N. Longenecker: In his commentary on Acts, Longenecker argues that the context of the passage suggests that "counsel" and "foreknowledge" are distinct concepts, emphasizing the deliberate nature of God's plan and His knowledge of future events. Darrell L. Bock: In his commentary on Acts, Bock acknowledges the grammatical possibility of applying the rule but ultimately argues for a nuanced interpretation that recognizes the distinction between "counsel" and "foreknowledge" while affirming the unity of God's plan. These scholars represent a range of perspectives on the interpretation of Acts 2:23, but they share a common skepticism about the strict application of Granville Sharp's rule to this particular passage. Their alternative interpretations highlight the importance of considering the context, theological implications, and the nuances of Greek grammar when interpreting biblical texts.
@@Biblia1 In the text Acts 2:23 it is not speaking of one person, rather one thing. What is meant in this text is "Determination, that is, foreknowledge." That is, both nouns "determination and foreknowledge" are being applied to the same person, Jesus Christ. This rule is exception-less. One would have to argue solely on theological grounds against these passages. There is truly no real grammatical objection that can be raised that in the case of Christ Jesus, He was delivered by the determinate counsel and (that is) foreknowledge of God: Both the terms "determination and foreknowledge" retain their distinct meanings, and in this construction, Peter was not speaking of "two things" in relation to Christ, rather to "one thing" in relation to Christ. Of Him alone can one speak in this manner, He Alone, Only,was delivered by the determinate counsel, that is, foreknowledge of God. For it is of Him Alone, Only do the Scriptures speak this unique statement. He Alone, Only was chosen, that is was the Elect One, Cf Isaiah 42:1 Thanks for your excellent question. P.S. By use of the Granville Sharp construction, words used to construct it do not change their meanings, as in Ephesians where Paul calls them the "holy (ones) in Ephesus, that is, faithful (ones) in Christ Jesus," the terms holy and faithful are speaking of the same people, however, the terms retain their distinctness even when applied collectively (or extensively) to one person or to one group of people, etc..
@@LandmarkBaptists I got you. I saw it now. But if Flowers has raised this argument, it will be a problem also for his soteriológico, since he states God chooses according to His foreknowledge. We as Calvinists, also have argued that “foreknowledge is not passive, but active that supposes election and also love
Awesome lesson. Thank you and God bless!
I don’t think that Grandville Sharp is applicable to common nouns. Or that is the case?
I extracted this quote from GotQuestions.org; namely, because it uses the phrase "common nouns."
"In simpler terms, the Granville Sharp Rule says that when two singular common nouns are used to describe a person, and those two nouns are joined by an additive conjunction, and the definite article precedes the first noun but not the second, then both nouns refer to the same person. This principle of semantics holds true in all languages." (Retrieved from: www.gotquestions.org/Granville-Sharp-Rule.html).
Thanks for your reply.
@@LandmarkBaptists Yes, But how Determination and knowledge means one person?
@@LandmarkBaptists The application of Granville Sharp's rule in Acts 2:23 is a matter of debate among scholars. Granville Sharp's rule states that when two singular nouns share the definite article and are joined by the conjunction "and," both nouns refer to the same person or thing.
In Acts 2:23, the Greek text says:
τὸν προκεχειρισμένον βουλῇ καὶ προγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ
Literally: "the one foreordained by the counsel and foreknowledge of God"
Some argue that Granville Sharp's rule applies here, meaning that "counsel" (βουλῇ) and "foreknowledge" (προγνώσει) refer to the same concept, emphasizing the unity of God's plan.
However, others argue that the rule does not apply in this case because the two nouns are not strictly synonymous and have distinct meanings. "Counsel" refers to God's will and purpose, while "foreknowledge" refers to His prior knowledge of events.
Arguments for applying the rule:
Grammatical structure: The grammatical structure of the Greek text seems to meet the requirements of Granville Sharp's rule.
Emphasis on the unity of God's plan: Applying the rule would emphasize the unity of God's plan and His sovereignty over events.
Arguments against applying the rule:
Semantic distinction: The two nouns have distinct meanings and are not strictly synonymous.
Other possible interpretations: The text can be interpreted without needing to apply Granville Sharp's rule.
Conclusion:
There is no clear consensus among scholars on whether Granville Sharp's rule applies in Acts 2:23. The interpretation of the verse will depend on the theological stance and understanding of Greek grammar of each interpreter.
While a definitive list of scholars who oppose the application of Granville Sharp's rule specifically to Acts 2:23 is difficult to compile, several notable figures have expressed reservations or offered alternative interpretations of the passage that do not rely on the rule. These include:
Murray J. Harris: In his article "Sharp Redivivus? A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule," Harris specifically addresses Acts 2:23, arguing that the context and theological implications of the passage do not support the application of the rule. He suggests that "counsel" and "foreknowledge" are distinct attributes of God, not a single concept.
I. Howard Marshall: In his commentary on Acts, Marshall acknowledges the possibility of applying Granville Sharp's rule to Acts 2:23 but ultimately concludes that the two nouns ("counsel" and "foreknowledge") refer to distinct aspects of God's plan.
F.F. Bruce: In his commentary on Acts, Bruce also recognizes the potential application of the rule but suggests that the two nouns are not necessarily synonymous and can be understood as referring to different aspects of God's activity.
Richard N. Longenecker: In his commentary on Acts, Longenecker argues that the context of the passage suggests that "counsel" and "foreknowledge" are distinct concepts, emphasizing the deliberate nature of God's plan and His knowledge of future events.
Darrell L. Bock: In his commentary on Acts, Bock acknowledges the grammatical possibility of applying the rule but ultimately argues for a nuanced interpretation that recognizes the distinction between "counsel" and "foreknowledge" while affirming the unity of God's plan.
These scholars represent a range of perspectives on the interpretation of Acts 2:23, but they share a common skepticism about the strict application of Granville Sharp's rule to this particular passage. Their alternative interpretations highlight the importance of considering the context, theological implications, and the nuances of Greek grammar when interpreting biblical texts.
@@Biblia1 In the text Acts 2:23 it is not speaking of one person, rather one thing. What is meant in this text is "Determination, that is, foreknowledge." That is, both nouns "determination and foreknowledge" are being applied to the same person, Jesus Christ. This rule is exception-less. One would have to argue solely on theological grounds against these passages. There is truly no real grammatical objection that can be raised that in the case of Christ Jesus, He was delivered by the determinate counsel and (that is) foreknowledge of God: Both the terms "determination and foreknowledge" retain their distinct meanings, and in this construction, Peter was not speaking of "two things" in relation to Christ, rather to "one thing" in relation to Christ. Of Him alone can one speak in this manner, He Alone, Only,was delivered by the determinate counsel, that is, foreknowledge of God. For it is of Him Alone, Only do the Scriptures speak this unique statement. He Alone, Only was chosen, that is was the Elect One, Cf Isaiah 42:1
Thanks for your excellent question.
P.S. By use of the Granville Sharp construction, words used to construct it do not change their meanings, as in Ephesians where Paul calls them the "holy (ones) in Ephesus, that is, faithful (ones) in Christ Jesus," the terms holy and faithful are speaking of the same people, however, the terms retain their distinctness even when applied collectively (or extensively) to one person or to one group of people, etc..
@@LandmarkBaptists I got you. I saw it now. But if Flowers has raised this argument, it will be a problem also for his soteriológico, since he states God chooses according to His foreknowledge. We as Calvinists, also have argued that “foreknowledge is not passive, but active that supposes election and also love
Amen