Translated by Anne Shulz

Anmerkung des Herausgebers: Bei dieser Mitteilung handelt es sich um die leicht modifizierte Version eines Vortrags, der auf der Regionalkonferenz der Evangelical Theological Society [Evangelikalen Theologischen Gesellschaft] 1994 an der John Brown University in Arkansas gehalten wurde. Sie wird für diejenigen hilfreich sein, die andere Essays von Dr. Wallace über die Widersprüche in der Pneumatologie (d.h. die unterschiedlichen Ansichten über den Dienst des Heiligen Geistes) gelesen haben, um hierzu eine ausgeglichene Sichtweise zu gewinnen.

Einleitung

Ähnlich wie frühere Präsidenten der ETS-SW hatte ich reichlich Zeit, über diese Ansprache nachzudenken.  In meinem Fall war es so, dass ich das Thema, über das ich vor zwei Jahren zu sprechen vorhatte, zu den Akten legte, denn in den vergangenen achtzehn Monaten hat der Herr, so glaube ich, mir ein anderes Thema ans Herz gelegt.  Sie werden in wenigen Augenblicken erfahren, was der Katalysator für diese Veränderung war.  Und was den Rest dieser Rede betrifft, werden Sie dann darüber urteilen müssen, ob dieser Impetus vom Herrn oder aus einer anderen Quelle kam.

Drei Bemerkungen zu Beginn: Erstens muss ich mein Zielpublikum definieren.  Einige von Ihnen sind Charismatiker oder Pfingstler.  Zu Ihnen werde ich heute abend nicht sprechen.  Aber ich denke, dass Sie mit vielem, was ich zu sagen habe, übereinstimmen werden.  Ich lade Sie daher als Zuhörer ein, wenn ich zu meinen nicht-charismatischen Brüdern und Schwestern spreche.

Zweitens: Ich spreche aus der Warte eines Nicht-Charismatikers oder Cessationisten heraus.  Das heißt, ich glaube, dass bestimmte Gaben des Heiligen Geistes in den frühesten Zeiten des Christentums eingesetzt wurden, um zu beglaubigen, dass Gott hier etwas ganz Neues wirkte.  Diese „Zeichengaben“ – wie die Gaben der Heilung, des Zungenredens oder des Wunderwirkens – hörten mit dem Tod des letzten Apostels auf.  Das also meine ich mit „Cessationismus“.  Einige von Ihnen, liebe Mit-Cessationisten, betrachten sich vielleicht als „weiche“ Cessationisten und meinen damit, dass einige der Gaben noch existieren, oder dass die Zeichengaben an Orten auftauchen können, an die das Evangelium gerade neu gebracht wurde¹, oder dass Sie sich gegenwärtig als Agnostiker bezüglich dieser Gaben betrachten, doch zumindest keine praktizierenden Charismatiker sind.  Aus Gründen der Argumentation will ich hier die harte Richtung vertreten, damit nichts, was ich heute über den Dienst des Heiligen Geistes sagen werde, als Äußerungen eines heimlichen Charismatikers verstanden wird.  Weiter: Es ist nicht meine Absicht, den Cessationismus zu verteidigen.  Das wird, soviel ich weiß, morgen in der Gruppendiskussion angegangen werden.  Vielmehr möchte ich einige kritische Punkte ansprechen, die ich als Cessationist im Hinblick auf die Rolle des Heiligen Geistes im heutigen Cessationismus bedenkenswert finde.

Drittens: So wie Sie mich von früheren Vorstellungen bei ETS-Konferenzen kennen, werden Sie wahrscheinlich eine gründlich dokumentierte, vernünftig recherchierte und ziemlich abstrakte akademische Vorlesung erwarten.  Es kommt aber nichts dergleichen.  Solche Vorlesungen haben ihre Berechtigung, doch nicht hier und nicht bei diesem Thema.  Vielmehr wird diese Ansprache persönlichen und anekdotischen Charakter haben.  Ich hoffe zuversichtlich, dass Sie meine Mitteilung trotz der nur spärlich vorhandenen Fußnoten nicht als unwahr abtun werden.  Was ich Ihnen mitteile, entspringt meiner eigenen Erfahrung mit Gott.  Das ist natürlich keine Grundlage für eine Veröffentlichung in einer theologischen Fachzeitschrift!  Aber ich hoffe und bete, dass es eine Grundlage dafür ist, Sie intellektuell anzuregen – wie gesagt: nicht dadurch, dass ich alle Ecken und Winkel der Pneumatologie ausgeleuchtet hätte, sondern dadurch, dass es glaubhaft klingt.  Hoffentlich – und das ist mein eigentlicher Wunsch und Gebet – wird es ebenso überzeugend in Ihren Herzen wie anregend in Ihren Köpfen sein.

Meine Ansprache setzt sich aus zwei Teilen zusammen.  Am Anfang steht ein Thema, das in der ETS nur selten vorkommt: ein persönliches Zeugnis.  Vielleicht liegt es an unserem wissenschaftlichen Bestreben, ad hominem-Argumente zu vermeiden, dass wir schließlich dahin gekommen sind, alles Persönliche geringzuschätzen.  Aber unser Verstand lässt sich nicht von unserem Herzen trennen.  Wenn wir ein bestimmtes Thema erforschen, entspringt der Impuls dazu oft höchst persönlichen Kämpfen und Problemen.  Und auf die Gefahr hin, dass ich dadurch verwundbar werde, dass ich Angriffspunkt für Anwürfe biete wie „die Ansichten von Wallace kannst du vergessen – wir wissen ja, woher die kommen“: Ich möchte Ihnen heute etwas mehr darüber anvertrauen, wer ich bin und wie Gott in meinem Leben wirkt.  Als Zweites werde ich elf Thesen auf den Tisch legen – Thesen, die damit zu tun haben, inwiefern unsere Beziehung zum Heiligen Geist Mängel aufweist.  Diese Thesen sind noch im Entstehen begriffen² – und zur gegebenen Zeit möchte ich eigentlich gerne 95 davon festnageln!

Mein spiritueller Weg

Ich wuchs auf in einer konservativen baptistischen Gemeinde im Süden von Kalifornien.  Im Alter von vier Jahren erfuhr ich meine Bekehrung, als ich im Sommer 1956 die Ferien-Bibelkurse besuchte.  Es war mein Bruder, der mich im reifen Alter von fünfeinhalb Jahren zu Christus brachte.  Ironie des Schicksals: Er selbst war zu dieser Zeit gar nicht gläubig.  Ein Dutzend Jahre später war ich dann Werkzeug dafür, ihn zum Erlöser zu bringen.

Ich wuchs in der Gemeinde auf.  Meine Jugend war von Furchtsamkeit geprägt: Ich war ein Clark Kent ohne Alter Ego.  Ich hatte Angst vor dem Leben, Angst vor Neuem, Angst davor, meine Fragen laut zu äußern.  Trotzdem – oder vielleicht deswegen – war ich Jugendgruppenleiter.  Aber ich hatte Fragen, die mir keine Ruhe ließen – Fragen über eine authentische christliche Erfahrung.  Im Alter von sechzehn Jahren befand ich mich dann mitten in einer lebensbedrohlichen Krise: Sollte ich Terri C. um ein Rendevous bitten oder nicht?  In Anbetracht des Aufruhrs in meinem Herzen stimmte ich rasch zu, als ein Freund mich zu einem Revival der Charismatiker im Melodyland in Anaheim/Kalifornien einlud.  Das Gebäude war überfüllt, einige tausend Menschen bildeten die Zuhörerschaft.  Der Sprecher sagte Verschiedenes, das mich intellektuell aufrührte.  Er forderte uns auf, zum Altar zu kommen, und ich war bereit, nach vorne zu gehen und ihm einen Teil meines Wesens zu überantworten.  Als ich von meinem Sitz aufstand, ergriff der Heilige Geist mein Herz und sagte: „Nein, deshalb gehst du nicht nach vorne.  Du musst mit Gott ins Reine kommen.“  Natürlich sprach er nicht hörbar zu mir, und diese Worte sind nicht als Neonlettern zu verstehen.  Aber als ich aufstand und bevor ich auch nur einen Schritt tat, war ich auf überwältigende Weise meiner Sündhaftigkeit überführt.  Der Geist Gottes war eindeutig an diesem Ort!

Während ich mich vorwärts bewegte, strömten ungefähr vier- oder fünfhundert andere Menschen nach vorne zur Mitte der Bühne.  Unter Hunderten von Menschen dort war ich recht verblüfft. als der Sprecher, mit dem Mikrophon in der Hand, ausgerechnet mich auswählte.  „Warum bist du nach vorne gekommen, junger Mann?“ fragte er mich.  „Ich bin gekommen, um mein Leben aufs Neue Christus zu weihen“, antwortete ich.  Gut, dass der Heilige Geist Einfluss auf mein Herz nahm, bevor meine Lippen in Gang kamen!

Dieser Abend des 6. Januar 1969 war ein Wendepunkt in meinem Leben.  Noch immer begehe ich diesen Tag als meinen spirituellen Geburtstag (da das genaue Datum meiner Bekehrung mit vier Jahren etwas nebulös war und noch immer ist).

In derselben Nacht lud mich, bevor ich Melodyland verließ, ein Mann namens David Berg ein, seine Gefolgschaft in Huntington Beach zu besuchen.  Diese Gruppe, die damals unter dem Namen „Leuchtturm von Huntington Beach“ bekannt war, wurde später als „Die Kinder Gottes“ bekannt, und David Berg wurde später David Moses oder Moses David genannt.

Ich schloss mich dieser Gruppe an und wurde ein Charismatiker.  Die Gruppe sprühte vor Anbetung und vertrat einen mutigen Evangelismus.  Mein Glaube lebte.  Mein Gebetsleben wuchs und gedieh.  Und ich gewann Mut.

Ich betete mehrere Stunden jeden Tag; ich betete darum, dass Gott mir die Gabe des Zungenredens gewähren möge.  Als einer der „Apostel“ (Apostel Bob, glaube ich³) im Leuchtturm entdeckte, dass ich noch nicht in Zungen geredet hatte, fragte er mich, ob ich schon im Geiste getauft worden sei.  Als ich das verneinte, legte er mir die Hände auf und erledigte das gleich an Ort und Stelle.  Und als er sah, dass sich dadurch nichts änderte, äußerte er Zweifel an meiner Erlösung.

So verließ ich still und leise die Gruppe.  Die darauf folgenden Monate verbrachte ich in der Gemeinschaft der Calvary Chapel, wo die neo-charismatische Bewegung ihre Ursprünge hat.  Schließlich, und eigentlich selbstverständlich, wandte ich mich überhaupt von der charismatischen Bewegung ab.  Aber mein Eifer für Gott war nicht gestillt.  Ich wurde als Nicht-Charismatiker Teil der Jesus-Bewegung.  Ich fuhr fort zu beten, zu missionieren und die Bibel zu lesen.  Tatsächlich gab es einen längeren Zeitraum, wo ich das Neue Testament jede Woche von vorne bis hinten las.  Ich sah Gottes Hand in Allem.  Und der Herr gewährte mir Mut in einem Maße, wie es mir von Natur aus nicht zukam und auch nicht zukommt⁴.  Auch nachdem ich die charismatische Bewegung verlassen hatte, brauchte ich noch lange Zeit, um meine Leidenschaft für Jesus Christus durch eine Leidenschaft für die Bibel zu ersetzen.

Aufgrund meines Interesses an spirituellen Dingen entschloss ich mich, ein christliches Liberal Arts College [in etwa: Schule für Christliche Allgemeinbildung; Anm. d. Ü.] zu besuchen.  Ich ging zur Biola-Universität, heiratete ein hübsches irisches Mädel⁵ direkt vom College weg und ging dann nach Dallas, um dort meine theologische Ausbildung fortzusetzen.

Während ich ein christliches College und ein cessationistisches Priesterseminar besuchte, verlor ich über die Jahre unmerklich meinen früheren, lebensprühenden Kontakt mit Gott.  Meine Erkenntnis der Schrift wurde vervollkommnet, aber mein Weg mit Gott wurde immer schleppender, bis er nur noch ein Dahinkriechen war.  In meiner Beschäftigung mit der Schrift nahm ich eine defensive und apologetische Haltung ein.  In den letzten paar Jahren habe ich schließlich begonnen, die Richtigkeit dieser Einstellung infrage zu stellen, weil ich – zumindest im Unterbewusstsein – erkannte, dass er meine tiefste Sehnsucht nicht befriedigen konnte.

Joe Aldrich, der Präsident des Multnomah Bible College, sagte einmal zu mir: „Nach dem Abschluss des Seminars braucht der durchschnittliche Student fünf Jahre, um aus dieser Erfahrung aufzutauen.“ Für die meisten Seminar-Studenten geschieht dieses Auftauen, so vermute ich, durch den ganz natürlichen Gang der Dinge.  Dagegen waren bei mir gleich mehrere Krisen notwendig, bevor der Herr mich wiederaufzuwärmen begann.  Die jüngste davon betraf meinen Sohn Andy, als er acht Jahre alt war – das ist gerade zwei Jahre her.

Im Dezember 1991 wurde Andy von einem schulbekannten Raufbold in den Bauch getreten.  Er hatte danach Bauchschmerzen, die eine ganze Zeit lang anhielten.  Zwei Monate danach vergaß Andy einmal, durch einen Zufall des Herrn geleitet, die Badezimmertür zu schließen, und meine Frau kam in diesem Moment vorbei.  Sie sah etwas, das sie zutiefst erschreckte: sein Urin war braun.  Noch am gleichen Tag ging sie mit ihm zu unserem Hausarzt.  Derwar nur der Erste einer ganzen Reihe von Ärzten und Spezialisten.  Keiner von ihnen konnte herausfinden, was Andy fehlte.  Schließlich wurde er am 20. April 1992 für eine Nierenbiopsie in der Kinderklinik aufgenommen.

Bevor die Nierenbiopsie stattfand, wurde noch eine Ultraschall-Untersuchung durchgeführt.  Wir hatten ein Blutgerinnsel in der Niere erwartet, doch das Sonogramm zeigte, dass es mehr als das war.  Es konnte ein Tumor sein.  Einer der Ärzte schlug vor, statt der Biopsie gleich eine explorative Operation durchzuführen.  Für mich klang das völlig verrückt!  Meinen „Beaker“⁶ aufschneiden!  Widerwillig gaben wir unser Einverständnis für den Eingriff.

Die Operation fand am Mittwoch, dem 22. April statt.  Damit begann ein wahrer Alptraum.  Einer der Ärzte bereitete uns im Voraus darauf vor:

Mr. und Mrs. Wallace, Sie brauchen sich wegen dieser Operation keine allzu großen Sorgen zu machen.  Was man auf dem Sonogramm gesehen hat, kann immer noch einfach ein Blutgerinnsel sein.  Und wenn es kein Blutgerinnsel ist, dann handelt es sich am wahrscheinlichsten um einen gutartigen Tumor.  Und wenn er nicht gutartig ist, dann ist es wahrscheinlich ein Wilms-Tumor.  Das ist ein angeborener Nierenkrebs, der bei Kindern vorkommt.  Er ist behandelbar und heilbar.  Wenn es allerdings kein Wilms-Tumor ist, dann gibt es die ganz entfernte Möglichkeit, dass ihr Sohn ein Nierenzellkarzinom hat.  Aber das ist bei Kindern eine so seltene Krebsart, dass die Wahrscheinlichkeit dafür äußerst gering ist.

In den endlosen Stunden während und nach der Operation wurden wir von einer furchtbaren Nachricht nach der anderen überrollt.  Andy hatte tatsächlich ein Nierenzellkarzinom.  Und es handelte sich dabei nicht nur um den normalen Typ – der an sich schon tödlich genug ist – sondern Andy hatte den aggressiveren Typ eines Nierenzellkarzinoms.  Weniger als zehn Kinder, bei denen dieser Typ weltweit je diagnostiziert wurde, haben damit mehr als zwei Jahre überlebt.  Außer einer radikalen Operation gibt es buchstäblich keine Behandlung und keine Heilung, soweit die medizinische Wissenschaft es sagen kann.

Aber mitten in alldem gab es auch positive Erkenntnisse – Erkenntnisse von schicksalhaftem Charakter, Erkenntnisse, die mir die Hoffnung gaben und immer noch geben, dass mein Sohn am Leben bleiben wird.  Erstens: Der Raufbold, der Andy in den Bauch getreten hatte, hatte ihm wahrscheinlich das Leben gerettet.  Nur in einem Drittel der Fälle gibt es beim Nierenzellkarzinom blutigen Urin.  Andere Symptome bestehen gewöhnlich in leichten Bauchschmerzen und gelegentlich erhöhter Temperatur⁷.  Erst der Tritt in den Bauch hatte wahrscheinlich den blutigen Urin ausgelöst.  Zweitens: Der eine Arzt, der auf einer explorativen Operation statt einer Biopsie bestanden hatte, hatte ihm ebenfalls das Leben gerettet.  Das Nierenzellkarzinom ist ein so aggressiver Krebs, dass in jedem berichteten Fall, in dem eine Biopsie durchgeführt wurde, der Patient daran verstarb.  Inmitten aller Fragen, aller Verwirrung und aller Schreie zu Gott konnte ich doch in alledem noch seine Hand erkennen.

Andys Niere wurde entfernt und er durchlief verschiedene sehr strapaziöse Untersuchungen, bei denen sein Körper nach irgendwelchen Resten von Krebs durchsucht wurde.  Denjenigen von Ihnen, die mit Krebsleiden vertraut sind, brauche ich nichts über die Qualen einer Knochenmarkszintigraphie zu erzählen.  Sechs Tage voller Untersuchungen brachten keine Spur von Krebs zutage.

Ein Nierenzellkarzinom ist bei Kindern so selten, dass Andy der erste bekannte Fall in den Vereinigten Staaten seit acht Jahren war.  Weltweit ist er das 161. Kind, bei dem jemals diese Diagnose gestellt wurde.  Es gibt keine Selbsthilfegruppen!  Bevor Andy aus dem Krankenhaus kam, konnte sich ein Team von zehn Ärzten nicht darüber einigen, ob eine Chemotherapie durchgeführt werden sollte.  Es wäre eine rein präventive Maßnahme, aber beim Nierenzellkarzinom ist Prävention alles.  Wenn der Krebs metastasiert, wird Andy sterben (nach dem, was die Statistiken sagen).  Kein Kind hat je das erneute Auftreten eines Nierenzellkarzinoms überlebt.  Uns wurde die Entscheidung überlassen, ob wir eine Chemotherapie wollten oder nicht.

Wir entschieden uns für eine Chemotherapie, weil das Risiko, sie zu unterlassen und ihm dadurch möglicherweise das Leben zu nehmen, unerträglich war.  Ich kann gar nicht in Worten ausdrücken, was die folgenden sechs Monate für uns waren – für Andy, für mich und seine Mutter, für seine drei Brüder.  Aber ich kann Ihnen sagen, dass ich mich emotional in einer Einöde befand.  Ich war wütend auf Gott und fand ihn sehr distanziert.  Hier war doch dieser kostbare kleine Junge, dem die Haare ausfielen und der immer mehr an Gewicht verlor.  Es gab eine Zeit, da wog er nur noch fünfundvierzig Pfund.  Sein Zwillingsbruder hatte zu diesem Zeitpunkt fünfundachtzig Pfund.  Andy war so schwach, dass wir ihn überall hintragen mussten.

Durch diese Erfahrung stellte ich fest, dass die Bibel nicht reichte.  Ich brauchte Gott auf eine persönliche Art – nicht als Objekt meiner Studien, sondern als Freund, als Führer, als Tröster.  Ich brauchte eine existenzielle Erfahrung des Einen Heiligen.  Offen gesagt fand ich, dass die Bibel nicht die Antwort war.  Ich fand die Schriften hilfreich – sogar in autoritativem Sinne hilfreich – als Anleitung.  Aber solange ich Gott nicht fühlte, gab die Bibel wenig Trost.  Mitten in diesem „Höllensommer“ begann ich zu erforschen, was aus meinem Glauben geworden war.  Ich fand in mir eine Sehnsucht nach größerer Nähe zu Gott; aber ich sah mich nicht in der Lage, diese mit meinen eigenen, normalen Mitteln zu erreichen: mit Exegese, Schriftlesung, weiterer Exegese.  Ich glaube, ich hatte Gott so sehr entpersonifiziert, dass ich gar nicht mehr wusste, wie ich mich mit ihm verständigen könnte, als ich ihn wirklich brauchte.  Ich sehnte mich nach ihm, stellte aber in meiner cessationistischen Umgebung viele, in der gesamten Gemeinde verbreitete Beschränkungen fest.  Ich stellte fest, dass der Heilige Geist in meiner evangelikalen Tradition ebenso erstickt worden war wie in meinem eigenen Herzen.

Diese Erfahrung mit der Krebserkrankung meines Sohnes war es, die mich zur Besinnung brachte, die mich zurück zu meinen Wurzeln brachte.  Und aus dieser Erfahrung heraus habe ich mich in den vergangenen achtzehn Monaten mit den praktischen Aspekten der Pneumatologie auseinandergesetzt.

Elf Thesen

Ich glaube, im heutigen Nordamerika gibt es zwei Richtungen des konservativen Christentums, aber keine von beiden ist wirklich ganz zufriedenstellend.  Es gibt das charismatische Christentum – die freigeistige, rechtshirnige Achterbahn der Erfahrungen.  Und es gibt den evangelikalen Rationalismus – angespannt, linkshirnig, kopflastig, argumentativ.  Keins von beidem ist eigentlich adäquat.  Verstehen Sie mich nicht falsch: Ich bin ein überzeugter Cessationist.  Ich glaube, dass die Zeichengaben im Verlauf des ersten Jahrhunderts aufhörten.  Aber ich denke, dass die Cessationisten anfangen sollten, sich ernsthafter mit Gott einzulassen.  Was wir brauchen, ist eine tief wurzelnde Reue – sowohl individuell als auch auf die ganze Gemeinschaft bezogen.

Ich möchte Ihnen elf Vorschläge präsentieren, elf Provokationen – elf Thesen, wenn Sie so wollen –, mit denen wir uns auseinandersetzen müssen.  Ich habe noch keine 95 davon – und hier ist auch nicht die Wittenberger Kirche.  Und, wie eingangs gesagt, diese Aufzählung befindet sich noch in einem Entwurfsstadium.  Die Reihenfolge der Thesen ist daher etwas zufällig.

(1) Im ersten Jahrhundert starben zwar die Zeichengaben aus, aber nicht der Heilige Geist. Wir alle können das in theologischer Hinsicht bestätigen, aber in praktischer Hinsicht verhalten wir uns so, als wäre der Heilige Geist auch gestorben.  Das ist meine fundamentale These, und es lohnt sich, diese These näher zu untersuchen.  Wo können wir, als Cessationisten, das Wirken des Heiligen Geistes heute noch bezeugen?  Was meinte Jesus, als er sagte: „Meine Schafe hören meine Stimme.“?  Was meinte Paulus, als er erklärte: „Die vom Geist geleitet werden, diese sind die Söhne Gottes.“?  Was meinte Johannes, als er schrieb: „Ihr habt die Salbung von dem, der heilig ist.“?

(2) Während die Charismatiker der Erfahrung höhere Priorität einräumen als der Beziehung, räumen die rationalistischen Evangelikalen dem Wissen höhere Priorität ein als der Beziehung zu Gott.  Beides trifft aber den Kern nicht.  Und Paulus verurteilt im 1.Korintherbrief beides.  Wissen macht aufgeblasen, und spirituelle Erfahrung ohne Liebe ist nichts wert.

(3) Die Betonung des Wissens vor der Beziehung führt uns in eine Bibel-Anbetung hinein.  Da der Text unsere Aufgabe ist, haben wir ihn zu unserem Gott gemacht.  Er ist unser Idol geworden.  Ich will es einmal klar und deutlich sagen: Die Bibel ist kein Glied der Dreieinigkeit.  Eine Dame in meiner Gemeinde sagte einmal betont witzig zu mir: „Ich glaube an die Dreieinigkeit: Vater, Sohn und Heilige Bibel.“

Eines der großen Vermächtnisse, die uns Karl Barth hinterlassen hat, ist sein christozentrischer Fokus.  Es ist wirklich eine Schande, dass allzu viele von uns so heftig auf Barth reagiert haben, denn vor lauter Eifer, mit dem wir seine bibliologischen Mängel aufgezeigt haben, sind wir geradewegs zu Biblioten geworden.  Barth und Calvin haben eine Menge gemeinsam: Sie zeigen eine Wärme, eine Frömmigkeit, eine Hingabe, ein Staunen in Gottes Gegenwart, das in vielen theologischen Wälzern fehlt, die aus unseren Kreisen hervorgegangen sind.

(4) Unter dem Strich kommt bei dieser Bibel-Anbetung eine Entpersonifizierung Gottes heraus.  Und am Ende nehmen wir gar keine Beziehung mehr zu ihm auf.  Er wird zu einem Objekt unserer Forschungen statt zu unserem Herrn, für den wir Subjekte sind.  Unsere Religion wird aller Vitalität entleert.  Und während Gott disseziert und (in Ihrem Falle, liebe Trichotomisten) triseziert wird, ändert sich unsere eigene Haltung vom „ich glaube an“ zu einem „ich glaube, dass“.

(5) Die Motivation für diese Entpersonifizierung Gottes kommt teilweise aus dem zunehmenden Bedürfnis nach Kontrolle.  Was wir an den Charismatikern am meisten verachten, ist ihr Kontrollverlust, ihre Emotionalität.  Davor haben wir Angst.  Wir trösten uns damit, dass die „Selbstbeherrschung“ ein Teil der Frucht des Geistes ist.  Aber wir meinen damit „tu alles in Maßen“ – einschließlich der Anbetung Gottes.  Sollten wir aber in der Verehrung Gottes nicht vielmehr eine rücksichtslose Hingabe zeigen?  Sollten wir uns nicht ganz auf ihn werfen, wo wir doch wissen, dass wir ohne ihn nichts tun können?

Stattdessen wollen wir als typische Cessationisten jederzeit die Kontrolle behalten.  Selbst wenn das bedeutet, dass wir Gott dadurch aussperren.  Dieser Punkt, die Kontrolle, war es, der meinen Freund Sam so lange bei den Cessationisten hielt.  Inzwischen ist Sam Mitglied der Vineyard-[Weinberg]Bewegung und ganz glücklich dabei: er erkennt nun an, dass er eigentlich niemals die Kontrolle innehatte.  Mitten in dieser meiner Ansicht nach heterodoxen Verlagerung seinerseits hat er den aufrichtigen Durchbruch zu Gott geschafft.

(6) Gott ist noch immer ein Gott des Heilens und der Wunder.  Als Cessationist kann ich die Tatsache anerkennen, dass es Wunder gibt, ohne einen Wunderwirkenden anzuerkennen.  Gott ist noch immer ein Gott des Heilens, auch wenn sein üblicher Modus operandi nicht unbedingt ein Gesundbeter ist.  Wenn Sie mir eine plumpe Verallgemeinerung erlauben: Das Problem bei den Charismatiker ist ihr Glaube, dass Gott nicht nur heilen kann, sondern heilen muss.  Gott wird auf diese Weise zu einem Werkzeug, das der allmächtige Glaubende handhabt.  Das ist einer der Gründe dafür, dass in der Geschichte der charismatische Glaube eine Bewegung unter den Arminiern war.  Das Problem bei den Nicht-Charismatiker ist andererseits, dass sie zwar behaupten, dass Gott heilen kann, aber davon ausgehen, dass er es nicht tun wird.  Ich glaube eigentlich nicht, dass sie an Gottes Fähigkeit glauben – sie glauben wohl eigentlich nicht, dass Gott heilen kann.  Das Problem bei den Charismatikern ist also die Negierung von Gottes Souveränität; das Problem bei den Nicht-Charismatikern die Negierung von Gottes Fähigkeiten oder seiner Güte oder von beidem gleichzeitig.  Und keine der beiden Parteien geht vollkommen ehrlich mit Gott um.  Keine vertraut ihm bedingungslos.

Lassen Sie mich das noch etwas weiter ausführen: Ist es einem Calvinisten möglich zu sagen, dass der Herr von einem Arminier Gebrauch machen könnte, um jemandem Erlösung zu bringen?  Ja, ich denke, Calvinisten würden einräumen, dass so etwas möglich wäre.  Wenn das so ist, ist es nicht gleichbedeutend damit, dass Gott einen „Gesundbeter“ benutzen könnte, um jemanden zu heilen?  Mit anderen Worten: Kann ich, als Cessationist, dem beistimmen, dass Gott manchmal jemanden durch die Anwesenheit oder den Stimulus eines Gesundbeters heilt?  Vielleicht zeigte der Kranke oder der Gesundbeter ja einen besonders starken Glauben.  (Schließlich zeigen die Charismatiker ja eher Glauben an Gottes Fähigkeiten als die Cessationisten.)  Könnten wir in einem solchen Fall nicht sagen, dass Gott weniger dem Gesundbeter Macht verliehen als vielmehr einfach seinen Glauben belohnt hat?

Wenn diese Vorstellung zutrifft, würden wir nicht unbedingt erwarten, dass jeder Mensch, den ein Gesundbeter berührt, auch geheilt wird.  Und genau so ist es auch: Nicht jeder wird geheilt.  Da der normale Modus operandi des Heilens der durch den Glauben eines Menschen ist, kann ich als Cessationist sowohl sagen, dass in charismatischen Kreisen oft ein starker Glaube existiert, als auch, dass es heutzutage so etwas wie einen Bona-fide-Gesundbeter nicht gibt.  Ich kann akzeptieren, dass in ihrer Mitte Wunder geschehen, ohne zu akzeptieren, dass es einen Wunderwirkenden gibt.

(7) Evangelikaler Rationalismus kann zum Abfall von der Spiritualität führen.  Ich spreche hier über die Erstickung des Geistes während des theologischen Aufbaustudiums und über die Verführung des akademischen Denkens.  Den meisten von uns werden wohl Beispiele einfallen für junge, begabte Studenten unter unserer Mentorschaft, die in der akademischen Umgebung all ihre christlichen Überzeugungen zu verlieren schienen.  Für viele von uns sind diese Erinnerungen nur zu schmerzlich.  Wie oft haben wir schon einen Daniel in die Löwengrube geschickt und ihm gleichzeitig durch unser Verhalten klargemacht, dass Beten überhaupt nichts bringt?

Für mich gibt es ein bestimmtes Beispiel, bei dem mir die Erinnerung schwer wird.  Einer meiner intelligentesten Studenten ging, vor etwa dreizehn Jahren, für seine Doktorarbeit nach Übersee.  Wir bereiteten ihn gut darauf vor, was die Exegese betraf.  Aber wir bereiteten ihn nicht gut vor, was das Beten betraf.  Vor ein paar Jahren traf ich ihn wieder und stellte fest, dass über sein evangelikales Erbe nur noch verwirrt war.  Er stellte selbst die Einmaligkeit Jesu infrage.  Dieser Student hatte einen Teil des Arsenals, das ihm zur Verfügung gestellt worden war, einfach verdrängt: das Zeugnis des Heiligen Geistes, etwas, zu dem ein Ungläubiger keinen Zugang hat.  Bis heute frage ich mich, inwieweit ich selbst beigetragen habe zu der Verwirrung dieses Mannes und zu seiner Verdrängung des Zeugnisses des Heiligen Geistes.

Es sind nicht alleine die geschichtlichen Daten und Fakten, die jemanden dazu bringen, die Auferstehung als Wahrheit anzunehmen.  Der Geist muss auf unser Herz einwirken und unsere natürliche Reserviertheit überwinden.  Wenn unsere Studenten, die nach dem Abschlussexamen an ihre Doktorarbeit gehen, nicht mehr daran denken, dass es zuerst und vor allem der Heilige Geist war, der sie zu Christus gebracht hat, und wenn sie dann sein Zeugnis in ihrem Herzen verdrängen, dann sind sie reif zum Abfall von der Spiritualität.  Sie müssen – ebenso wie wir alle, die wir in einer akademischen Umgebung leben – daran erinnert werden, dass ein christliches Leben nicht nur aus Exegese und Apologetik besteht.

Ich spreche hier nicht nur von Erfahrungen meiner Studenten.  Ich selbst fand mich, als ich mich während meines Promotionsstudiums intensiv mit den Daten und Fakten über die Auferstehung herumschlug, plötzlich mitten in einer existenziellen Krise wieder.  Damals studierte ich biblische Theologie und setzte mich intensiv mit den zwei großen Denkern Rudolf Bultmann und Karl Barth auseinander.  Ich war beeindruckt von der Tatsache, dass – so stringent die geschichtlichen Daten und Fakten über die Auferstehung auch sein mochten – immer noch ein gewisser Zweifel blieb und bleiben würde.  Daten und Fakten alleine können die Kluft zwischen uns und Gott nicht überbrücken.  So sehr ich auch versuchte, die Daten vom Anfang bis zum Ende reichen zu machen, damit zwischen Herz und Verstand vollkommene Übereinstimmung herrschte – ich schaffte es nicht.  Irgendwann war ich dann bis tief ins Herz verzweifelt.  Ich war schon so tief in den Objektivitäts-Kult hineingezogen worden, dass ich vergessen hatte, wer mich überhaupt erst zum Glauben gebracht hatte.  Erst als ich zögernd die Tatsache akzeptierte, dass doch zumindest an irgendeiner Stelle der Glaube eine Rolle spielen musste – und zwar unter Vermittlung durch den Heiligen Geist –, schaffte ich es, meine Verzweiflung zu überwinden.  Die nicht-verifizierbaren Elemente des Evangelikalismus waren mir eher zur Peinlichkeit geworden als zu einem Anker.

(8) Die Power-Broker des rationalen Evangelikalismus seit der Jahrhundertwende waren weiß, männlich und zwanghaft.  Seit den Tagen der Princeton-Absolventen (Warfield, Hodge, Machen u.a.) wird der amerikanische nicht-charismatische Evangelikalismus von weißen, linkshirnigen, nachaufklärerischen, zwanghaften Männern mit schottischer Vernunft dominiert.  Durch diese Situation wird möglicherweise ein Teil vom Bilde Gottes unterdrückt, vielleicht wird dadurch auch das Zeugnis des Geistes zum Teil unterdrückt.  Und vielleicht fällt sie auch aus dem historischen Verlauf des Christentums heraus⁸.  Die demographischen Gegebenheiten haben vielfältige Folgen.

• Die weiße evangelikale Gemeinschaft muss auf die schwarze evangelikale Gemeinschaft hören und von ihr lernen.  Ich finde es äußerst faszinierend, dass die Erfahrungen mit Gott in der schwarzen, nicht-charismatischen Gemeinschaft sehr verschieden sind von denen in der weißen nicht-charismatischen Gemeinschaft.  In vieler Hinsicht ähneln sie eher den Erfahrungen weißer Charismatiker als den Erfahrungen weißer Cessationisten mit Gott.  Eine umfassende Erfahrung von Gott findet immer Kontext der Gemeinschaft statt.  Und diese Gemeinschaft muss heterogen sein.  Wenn, wie oft gesagt wird, in Amerika die Absonderung Sonntags vormittags zwischen 11 und 12 Uhr am größten ist, dann stimmt irgendetwas ganz und gar nicht mit der Kirche.
• Der Heilige Geist wirkt nicht nur in der linken Gehirnhälfte.  Er arbeitet auch am rechten Hirn: Er facht unsere Vorstellungskraft an und lässt uns froh sein, lachen, singen und erschaffen.  Nur wenige Christen arbeiten heutzutage oder widmen sich ganz der Kunst.  Wo sind die Liedkomponisten?  Wo sind die Romanschreiber?  Die Maler?  Die Dramatiker?  Ein sehr hochranginger Herausgeber einer christlichen Zeitschrift sagte mir vor zwei Wochen, dass er auf dem Gebiet der Belletristik nur einen einzigen hervorragenden christlichen Schriftsteller wisse.  Was machen unsere theologischen Seminare, um die Rechtshirnigen anzuspornen?  Was tut die Kirche, um sie anzuregen?
• Im Großen und Ganzen sind Frauen mehr auf Empfang als Männer, was das rechte Hirn anbetrifft.  Wir Männer haben es versäumt, den Frauen in unserer Mitte zuzuhören – und dieses Versäumnis hat damit zu tun, dass wir nicht auf die Stimme des Geistes hören.  Wenn das Imago Dei männlich und weiblich ist, dann verzerren wir eben dieses Bild vor den Augen der Welt, indem wir den wertvollen Beitrag, den Frauen leisten, im Kern ersticken.

(9) Wir brauchen noch immer die Führung des Heiligen Geistes, um den Willen Gottes zu erkennen. Der Rationalismus in unseren Kreisen macht das Fällen von Entscheidungen zu einem rein intellektuellen Vorgang.  Das Gebet hat dabei keinen Platz.  Der Heilige Geist hat dabei keinen Platz.  Ich glaube, dass es noch einen Mittelweg gibt zwischen der täglichen Erwartung von Offenbarungen einerseits und den ausschließlich auf Logik und Vernunft basierten Entscheidungen andererseits.  Garry Friesens „Decision-Making and the Will of God” [„Unsere Entscheidungen und der Wille Gottes“] hat viel dazu beigetragen, manche einfältigen Vorstellungen darüber zu korrigieren, wie wir im weltlichen Bereich funktionieren.  Aber ich glaube, Friesen ist dabei zu weit gegangen.  Ich empfange vielleicht keine Offenbarungen, aber ich glaube trotzdem, dass der Geist mich oft mit unausgesprochenen Impulsen leitet.  Zugegebenermaßen geschieht das vor allem im moralischen Bereich, und Friesen behandelte im Prinzip den amoralischen Bereich.  Aber für die Führung des Geistes im moralischen Bereich bin ich immer sensibler geworden durch die grundlegende Erkenntnis, dass der Geist mich heute eigentlich in allen Bereichen leitet.

(10) Wenn wir nach der Kraft des Geistes suchen, dürfen wir dem Leiden Christi dabei nicht aus dem Wege gehen.  Das ist die Botschaft des Markus-Evangeliums: Die Jünger konnten den Christus in seiner Herrlichkeit nicht ohne den Christus in seinem Leiden haben.  Allzu oft, wenn wir beschließen, dass es jetzt wieder einmal angebracht wäre, unsere Bekanntschaft mit Gott zu erneuern, tun wir das nach unseren eigenen Vorstellungen.  Wiederum spreche ich aus persönlicher Erfahrung.

Vor sechs Wochen starb einer meiner Studenten an Krebs.  Ein anderer lag im Sterben.  Ich begann die Studenten am Seminar in Dallas zu drängen, dass sie für ein Eingreifen Gottes beten sollten.  Der Herr antwortete auf unser Gebet nicht so, wie wir es uns erhofft hatten.  Vor drei Wochen wurde Brendan Ryan beerdigt.  Mein Schmerz nahm noch zu, als ich seine drei kleinen Kinder beim Gedenkgottesdienst vor den Trauernden aufgereiht stehen sah.  Ich hatte Brendan nur einmal im Krankenhaus besucht, und ich war entschlossen, dass so etwas nicht noch einmal vorkommen sollte.

Zwei weitere meiner Studenten stehen am Rande des Todes.  Ich habe sie letzte Woche angerufen und besucht.  Und ich habe etwas über das Leiden und über die Aufrichtigkeit vor Gott gelernt.  Ich stellte Gott Fragen – und tue das immer noch.  Aus meinem Schmerz heraus – dem Schmerz über diese Studenten und ihre Familien, dem Schmerz über meinen Sohn, dem Schmerz über mich selbst – entstehen Aufrichtigkeit und Wachstum.  Es gibt Momente, in denen ich an Gottes Güte zweifle.  Doch ich zweifle nie daran, dass er für mich viel mehr gelitten hat, als ich je für ihn leiden werde.  Und das ist der einzige Grund dafür, dass ich ihn meine Hand halten lasse auf dem Weg durch dieses dunkle Tal.  Auf der Suche nach Gottes Macht habe ich seine Persönlichkeit entdeckt.  Er ist nicht nur allmächtig, sondern er ist auch der Gott allen Trostes.  Und eines der wichtigsten Mittel, die der Geist einsetzt, um uns zu Gott zu bringen, besteht darin, dass er uns durch das Leiden hindurch und nicht aus dem Leiden heraus führt.

(11) Eine Frage am Ende: Wofür legt der Geist Zeugnis ab?  Mit Sicherheit über die Auferstehung Christi.  Aber was ist mit den Schriften?  Für eine bestimmte Interpretation vielleicht?  Für eschatologische Dinge?  Für exegetische Methoden?  Antworten Sie nicht vorschnell.  Manches davon muss man noch einmal überdenken. ... Und das ist auch meine Herausforderung an Sie: Ergründen Sie noch einmal, was das Neue Testament über den Heiligen Geist lehrt.  Beschönigen Sie nicht die Texte, sondern kämpfen sie um ihre Bedeutung.  Wenn der Geist nicht im ersten Jahrhundert gestorben ist – was tut er dann heute?

¹So etwas bezeichne ich als konzentrischen Cessationismus, im Gegensatz zum linearen Cessationismus. Das heißt, dieser Cessationismus betrachtet die Dinge nicht chronologisch-linear, sondern behauptet vielmehr, dass sich das Evangelium wie die Wellen um einen Stein, der in einen Teich geworfen wurde, und dass am äußersten Rand des Kreises, der sich in Raum und Zeit immer weiter vom Jerusalem des ersten Jahrhunderts weg ausbreitet, die Zeichengaben noch immer existieren. So gäbe es die Zeichengaben beispielsweise in der Dritten Welt zu der Zeit, wo das Evangelium dort jeweils zum ersten Mal verkündet wird. Diese Sichtweise lässt also die Möglichkeit zu, dass die Zeichengaben an den Grenzen des Christentums vorkommen, ist aber eher skeptisch, was die „durchgearbeiteten“ Gebiete betrifft.

²Zur Zeit bin ich Mitherausgeber für ein Buch über genau dieses Thema. Es trägt den Arbeitstitel Wer hat Angst vor dem Heiligen Geist? Oder: Pneumatisches Christentum: die dritte Alternative.  Dieses Buch wird von Cessationisten für Cessationisten geschrieben werden.  Wir haben eine sehr lange Vorlaufzeit mit dem Verlag; zum Teil damit man qualifizierte Leute für die Beiträge gewinnen kann, zu Teil aber auch, um den beiden Herausgebern genügend Zeit zu geben, dass sie sich darüber klar werden und in Worte fassen, wie Gott mitten in beider gegenwärtigen Krise wirkt.

Genauso ist auch diese gesamte Arbeit noch in einem vorläufigen Entwicklungsstadium. Ich hoffe, Sie werden mir verzeihen, dass ich Ihnen keinen vollständig ausgearbeiteten Text präsentiere.

³Es gab zwölf Apostel im Leuchtturm.  Wir kannten sie alle nur unter ihrem Vornamen, denn – so sagte der Apostel Bob – „die ursprünglichen Apostel hatten nur einen Namen“.

⁴Und das so sehr, dass ich in den späten 1960er Jahren als Hochschüler die University of California in Irvine aufsuchte, um vor einem öffentlichen Forum zu missionieren.  Das war anlässlich der Besetzung der UCI eines „Sit-Ins“ der SDS (einer Gruppe junger Sozialisten).  Die Schule wurde während der Besetzung geschlossen.  Ich mogelte mich hinein in der Hoffnung, zu Hunderten von Studenten über eine größere Revolution als die sozialistische sprechen zu können.

⁵Ich muss zugeben: sie besitzt auch das sprichwörtliche irische Temperament.  Aber nach fast zwanzig Jahren des Zusammenlebens mit ihr würde ich es gar nicht anders wollen.

⁶Andys Spitzname.  Seit er etwa vier Jahre alt war, imitierte er immer die Geräusche von Beaker in der Fernsehsendung „Sesamstraße“.

⁷Tatsächlich verlief der erste Fall, der (1934) aus Amerika berichtet wurde, so mild, dass das Kind starb, bevor die Eltern überhaupt irgendetwas an ihm wahrnahmen, was einer Vorstellung beim Arzt wert gewesen wäre.

⁸Im Einklang damit trug Vern Poythress im vergangenen November eine Arbeit vor der ETS vor, in der er die Existenz des Wunderbaren unter den Cessationisten bestätigte.  Teil seiner Argumentation war die Feststellung, dass die Cessationisten des 19. Jahrhunderts in so vieler Hinsicht Gottes Gegenwart wahrnahmen und sein Wirken sahen, wie es unter heutigen Cessationisten nicht annähernd mehr der Fall ist.

Preface: The following is an essay originally written for delivery on the radio over a decade ago, when my children were still quite young.

James Dobson was wrong. In his book, The Strong-Willed Child, Dobson creates the distinct impression that no man will sire more than one strong-willed child (at least, that's how I read the book). My wife and I clung to this false hope soon after the birth of our first-born son.

Though we had never met James Dobson, he most certainly witnessed Noah's grand entrance into the world eighteen years ago. Otherwise, how could he have described in such intricate detail the birth of our son when he wrote about the strong-willed child:

Just as surely as some children are naturally compliant, there are others who seem to be defiant upon exit from the womb. They come into the world smoking a cigar and complaining about the temperature in the delivery room and the incompetence of the nursing staff and the way things are run by the administrator of the hospital. They expect meals to be served the instant they are ordered, and they demand every moment of mother's time. As the months unfold, their expression of willfulness becomes even more apparent, the winds reaching hurricane force during toddlerhood.¹

We were relieved to know that we had "gotten out of the way" our one trouble-maker; now we would relax, blissfully assuming that we could create two or three normal offspring with which to fill our quiver.

Then came Ben. Minutes after his birth, I pondered the depressing thought that Dobson had drawn a composite picture of my two sons in his description of the strong-willed child. Though bearing the marks of a different personality, Ben's volition was a faithful reproduction of the original.

In light of statistical probabilities, Pati and I felt quite confident that we could bring a third child into the world without creating another monster. But we did not plan on begetting a litter! Apparently, nine months of in-house fighting is sufficient time to strengthen anyone's will. (I suppose we'll never know which one would have been 'normal.') Though classified as fraternal twins physically, Andy and Zachary resemble Siamese twins when it comes to nastiness. Each boy pulls the other's hair, back-bites (literally), and uses lethal weapons in an all-out campaign to annihilate his womb-mate. 'Sibling rivalry' is a ridiculously euphemistic expression which does no justice to their overt antagonism. This is World War III!

There is little one can do to console the parents of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse (though it would be nice if James Dobson would try!). Somewhere out there are three couples who have beaten the odds--they are providentially 'lucky' to have begotten one more normal child than they deserved. If you know who you are, thank us.

The Shema

As Pati and I began to close one chapter of our lives and open another, the sobering reality of parenthood started sinking in. My romantic idealism was abruptly brought to its knees by the sight and smell of two babies (who were supposed to be napping) finger-painting on the walls with their own 'bi-products' (to put it politely). I have since become convinced that the only perfect parents on this globe are those who have yet to bear progeny.

Initially, I felt that begetting four sons in four years was no meager accomplishment (even if we did cheat a little). Rearing them, however, is quite obviously becoming the acid test. As I read the Scriptures, I come face-to-face with the mega-responsibilities which God has given to me as head of my house. One passage in particular has constantly gnawed at my conscience since our first-born opened the womb:

"And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up" (Deut. 6:6-7, NASB).

These two verses are wedged in the middle of a paragraph, Deuteronomy 6:4-9, known as the Shema (due to the first word of the Hebrew text). From the earliest times to the present day, this passage has been recited daily by orthodox Jews. It comprises the core of Judaism. Jesus quoted verse 5, calling it "the great commandment" (Matt 22:37), thus indicating his estimation of this portion of the Word of God. There are three elements to the Shema: (1) the doctrinal foundation--"Yahweh is One" (v. 4)--which stresses the unity of simplicity (or, indivisibility) of God; (2) the responsibility of people to love God in a wholehearted way (because God is indivisible, man's love for God should be, too); and (3) the primary sphere of application in which one trains others about God and his ways--namely, the family (vv. 6-9).

This text makes its point much the way a charging rhinoceros would! It is a seismic catalyst for every father's soul--it should cause us all to tremble before God! What awesome responsibilities we have! Unfortunately, like so many Christian fathers, I too have flip-flopped my biblical priorities. I desire so desperately to have an impact for Jesus Christ in my little niche on this planet. Often I have run around, 'doing' ministry, while my children flounder in a sea of paternal neglect. But as I read the Shema, I realize that if I succeed in the ministry, but fail at home, then I fail. Period. God holds me accountable for my family first, ministry second. When a man reverses the order, he inevitably spells disaster for both.

'Acting It Out'

How then should a man rear his children? Again, the Shema lays out a tidy agenda for fathers. The head of the family is not merely a sergeant-at-arms who wields a big stick. His duty is not solely to rescue his wife from certain insanity every evening by becoming a surrogate screamer as his hoarsey spouse recoupes in the kitchen. Biblical fatherhood is more than yelling and swatting. In fact, it is quite different from that. We are to have a positive influence on our children by training them, in words and behavior, in the ways of God. Even teaching them good morals is hardly adequate. The Shema reminds us that we are to teach our children good theology--we are to teach them about God.

For the past several years I have taken this responsibility quite seriously. At times, too seriously. We started in Mark's Gospel and after dinner every evening I would read a full chapter to two squirming children (both preschoolers) and one impatient wife. The troops were then quizzed on the contents. Pudding- or cookies-rights would be conferred on those who passed the exam. Once, when my mother-in-law came to visit, no one was allowed to rise from the table until all twelve apostles had taken up permanent residence in their craniums. The Inquisition would have been pleasant fare compared to such paternal sanctimony!

At least, I was trying. And, as Howard Hendricks has pointed out, it's easier to steer a moving car than a parked one! Joshua was our next assignment. I began to adapt a little more to my boys' attention span. Swallowing my seminary-trained pride, I read only one paragraph at a time--and from a paraphrased edition no less! (I am still in the process of realizing that we must not treat Scripture as so 'sacred' that it becomes untouchable. What a paradox! That which is capable of touching our lives in the most profound way we too often 'revere' by speaking of it in a spiritual jargon and a stain-glassed voice! But this Book is alive! If it is unpalatable to our children, the fault too often lies within us. The Word of God is a feast for all who hunger after righteousness.)

Back to Joshua. One particularly restless evening, I decided to let the boys burn off their excess energy (though, in reality, we have yet to plumb the depths of Ben's energy source; if it could only be harnessed, America could thumb its collective nose at OPEC!). We were in chapter six. It struck me that role-playing might help to wear down these offspring of mine. So, for no more spiritual a reason than that I was physically drained, we 'acted out' the text. We built a small city out of blocks and then marched around the coffee table seven times in silence (a grade 'b' miracle in itself). On the last lap, the boys shouted and stamped and clanged and clapped. Needless to say, Jericho fell.

That was just over three years ago.² To this day, Noah and Ben remember the story of Jericho well because they not only heard it-- they marched it and shouted it and stamped it, too. The 'Battle of Jericho,' for us, became a turning point in this family's walk with God. "Do you want to walk it out?" has since become a standard line in the Wallace household to evoke squeals of delight from now four precious little men.

Goliath meets the Karate Kid
or
Parting the Red Jello

To date, we have acted out large portions of the following 'scripts': Joshua, Genesis, Exodus, Esther, and Daniel. Usually devotions require little in the way of props. But sometimes we need a day or two of planning in order to pull off a memorable event.

Daniel and the lions' den was a snap. We simply put a few chairs together and threw several stuffed animals in the middle (including one large lion which Pati had created). Noah insisted on playing Daniel, though I personally felt that I was the more logical choice. Ben and the dynamic duo represented the one hundred and twenty satraps. I played Darius. Pati was the audience (her favorite after enduring a day with four chattering, clattering munchkins!). The satraps saw Daniel praying and fingered him before Darius. I had no choice but to throw him into the pit with Winnie the Pooh and the Cookie Monster. It was easy enough to keep the ferocious beasts away from devouring the boy--the trick was in getting them later to crush the satraps' bones! As I recall, Noah accommodated us by doubling as a half-starved lion. If I didn't know better, I'd say he rather enjoyed pouncing on those satraps.

David and Goliath was also easy to stage. We didn't use real stones, of course, though Ben came close to a temper tantrum as he reflected on the missed opportunity to really harm his older brother! The biggest hurdle to overcome was that Goliath refused to die. But when 'David' placed a couple of well-placed karate kicks at Goliath's torso, he went down like a rock! Sadly, David missed another opportunity when a plastic spoon, instead of a broad sword, was used to cut off Goliath's head.

Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac also required little planning. Shortly after we had gained two new tax deductions, we found ourselves in Genesis 22. Clearly Ben was in the throes of an identity crisis. And had I reflected on the situation, it should have occurred to me that Noah might like having one less sibling rival around. Nevertheless, we marched on. As Abraham, I took my only son (Ben) on a camping trip. He carried some wood (pipe cleaners) for a weenie roast. Then suddenly, I tied him up, placed him on an altar (bed), brought out a knife (knife!), and stood over a bewildered little boy. In retrospect, I should have told him the whole story before we began acting it out. In fact, as I held the knife overhead and waited for the angel of the Lord to appear, there was a long enough pause to devastate any notions of blood being thicker than water! Then, as the knife began its descent, the angel leaped up from behind the bed and shouted, "Daddy! Don't do it!" Though Noah had forgotten his lines, this was one time I was actually grateful. . .

Other family 'altars' have required some fairly serious planning. The classic example was Jacob and Esau fighting in the Rebeccah's womb. This one took months of preparation, plus an extra blessing from the Lord! On this occasion Pati supplied all the props. . .

Parting the red sea also took a little effort. Pati made a bowl of Jello (red, of course). After it jelled, the Lord parted it (with a serving spoon). G. I. Joe led his troops through on dry ground. But when Pharaoh and his Indians followed in hot pursuit, they found themselves buried under an avalanche of hot, liquid gelatin.

Through such devotions, we have discovered that a child's imagination is incredibly elastic. Our boys have no trouble seeing a hungry lion in the eyes of Winnie the Pooh, or Moses waving an M-16 in army-issue khakis. And they have equal facility in comprehending the spiritual lessons derived from these biblical events. They have learned lessons of faith, love, courage, compassion. And always they have learned that God is in control and that he cares for his children.

But most importantly, they have learned the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ. One evening in Exodus brought this home most effectively. We were in chapter 12. Pati fixed a four-course dinner at my request (including bitter herbs and grape juice) while the boys and I were painting some butcher paper blood-red. As we read the passage, we ate. Then we 'slit' Pooh's throat and taped his 'blood' over the doorpost. As the angel passed over our house, our first-born son, Noah, sighed in relief. But then we switched roles and played the part of an Egyptian family. We took the blood off the doorpost, Pooh was restored to life, and Noah bought the farm! That one evening has become a springboard for illustrating grace, justice, faith, salvation--even a burden for the lost. Noah and Ben both trusted Christ at age four and now openly share their faith. God has certainly been gracious to make the gospel clear to them and to bring them to faith in him at such an early age. We are praying that he will do the same for Andy and Zach.³

No Infallible Methods

Now I do not wish to foist our method for family devotions on others as though it were some ex cathedra approach. In fact, we do not always 'act out' Scripture. We employ a variety of means to teach our children about the Word of God and the God of the Word--not all of which are entertaining, either. We memorize Scripture, interpret life as it comes at us through a theological grid, read passages quietly in the few still parts of the day, and speak often of and to our Lord. But 'acting out' Scripture is frequently the best medium to utilize the God-given energies of four little Indians who might burn Daddy at the stake if they were forced simply to hear a Bible story.

The bottom line is that I am beginning to face the gigantic responsibilities that I, as a father, must bear. The what is clearly prescribed in Scripture. I am to teach my children about God. That is the unvarnished, inflexible objective of every man who would be a Christian father. But the how is not so rigid. We as fathers have incredible latitude to dovetail the biblical precepts with our own God-stamped personalities. For those with strong-willed children, the task may seem too much. But the challenge is to carve out our own method (one which neither alienates your children nor dilutes the objective) as you diligently pursue training your children about their Creator and Redeemer. After all, what can be more rewarding than seeing your own children face the challenges of life in communion with the Savior?

¹ James Dobson, The Strong-Willed Child (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1978) 20.

² That is, when this message was originally given in 1986. The boys were, at that time, seven, five, two, and two.

³ Andy and Zach also came to faith in Christ, at age five.

Years ago I had a friend who made no plans, set no goals, aimed at nothing. His reason? He wanted always to be open to the leading of the Holy Spirit. Before he decided anything, he prayed. He asked the Lord whether he should go to work that day, brush his teeth, use deodorant. (I wish he had asked me!) Needless to say, he didn't keep a job very long.

My friend made three faulty assumptions in determining God's will:

(1) He thought that his feelings were an infallible guide for sensing the leading of the Spirit. But even Jesus did not take this attitude, for when he prayed in the garden, "If it is possible, let this cup pass from me" (Matt 26:39), he was clearly indicating (among other things) that emotionally he would prefer not to face the cross.

(2) My friend believed that the Holy Spirit leads people only in a spontaneous way. That is, he does not move them to make plans. But Paul made plans (see, for example, Acts 15:36; Rom 1:13), the apostles made plans (Acts 6:1-3), and even Jesus himself made plans (Matt 10:5-15; 16:21; 26:17-19). Surely we cannot claim that these men were not Spirit-led in their planning.

(3) My friend subconsciously rejected the idea that he could hear the Spirit's voice through the Scriptures. But by abandoning the Word of God as his normative guide, he was assuming that the Holy Spirit usually circumvents the Word when he speaks to men. This is hardly the view of the Spirit-led men of the past (see, for example, Ps 119:9-16; Matt 4:4; 5:17; 2 Tim 3:15-17).

On the other hand, some Christian businessmen are so rigid in their schedules that any little 'crisis' ruins their day. Sometimes they stick to their plans even when the only reason for doing so is to save face. But the apostle Paul did not share this rigidity. On more than one occasion in his missionary travels, Paul planned to invade a region with the gospel but the Spirit of God prevented him (Acts 16:6-7). Herein is balance: although Paul planned, he was sensitive to the Lord altering his plans.

Such people approach goal-setting from opposite ends of the spectrum: the first fellow, though humble, does not really use his God-given intellect to make decisions. He does not love God with his mind (Matt 22:37). The second fellow, however, though using his mind, neglects his heart. In his rigid long-range planning, he assumes omniscience. But he does not really know everything. Even when his plans go awry, he arrogantly clings to his objectives. Often his anxiety about the future underlies his desire to control all aspects of his life (but see Matt 6:34).

Two passages especially address these extremes. In Proverbs 6, the author rebukes the man who prepares for nothing, calling him a "sluggard." He implores the sluggard to observe the ant which "prepares her food in the summer, and gathers her provision in the harvest" (v. 8). According to the Scriptures, the wise person in business will establish objectives and prepare for the future.

But that is not all. The wise businessman will recognize his finiteness and subject his plans to the Lord. In James 4, the author specifically addresses the one who sets his goals in concrete: "Come now, you who say, 'Today or tomorrow, we shall go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.' Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away" (vv. 13-14).

James calls such rigidity arrogance ( v. 16). But he does not say that we should not set goals. Rather, we should make plans, but submit them to the Lord: "Instead, you ought to to say, 'If the Lord wills, we shall live and also do this or that'" (v. 15).

In reality, James 4:15 balances out both extremes. We should use our minds and set goals, but we must do so in humility, recognizing that God alone controls our destiny.

How Can We Apply These Truths?

Three specific areas come to mind:

(1) With reference to business, our "yea" ought to be "yea" and our "nay" ought to be "nay," yet we need to learn to make contingent promises. That is, concerning a matter outside of our control, we may need to add certain qualifications to those kinds of projections. Although a client may not like this approach, he would like much less an absolute promise that was later broken due to "unforeseen circumstances." And in these cases, if we are able to improve on such a projected (not promised) deadline, we might gain additional respect and some repeat business by our honesty.

(2) With reference to our family, we also need to learn to make contingent promises. However, if we are not running on a "do or die" schedule at the office, then our work will not be one of the contingencies. If I tell my son that I will take him fishing next Saturday, I'd better add, "If the car works and it's not snowing." But if I repeatedly add, "if I am caught up at work," then my son will soon come to believe that he is not as important to me as my job. You see, contingent promises in business and family work together!

(3) Finally, with reference to one's financial stewardship, again contingent promises need to be made. Very few people have both the means and the knowledge of the future to say honestly, "I pledge X amount of dollars to this missionary for the next year." It is far wiser to say, "If the Lord enables me, I will give so much." Though missionaries, churches, seminaries, etc., might feel uncomfortable with such a "pledge," they ought not. For in reality all of us are daily dependent upon the Lord for the provisions of life (Matt 6:11).

In stating these three applications, I fear that some will see in them an excuse for not meeting obligations. But the businessman who repeatedly fails to meet even his projected deadlines will soon be out of work; the father who repeatedly fails to spend time with his children will be the catalyst for rebellion in his own home; and the steward who neglects the work of the Lord will not be a cheerful giver in whom the Lord delights.

Setting goals is serious business. We ought not to be so anxious about life that we make rigid plans which are beyond our capacity to keep, nor should we be so lazy as to make no plans at all. Rather, with all humility, let us submit our plans to the Lord, and work for his glory.

Granville Sharp is widely known in evangelical circles for his famous Greek rule which has been used to defend the deity of Christ in various NT passages.¹ Outside of evangelical circles, Sharp is better known as the man who did for England what Abraham Lincoln did for America. He was the prime mover in the abolition of slavery in England; one might even say that he was the force behind Wilberforce. But these two foci are only the tip of the iceberg in this man’s remarkable life. He launched a Bible society, saved a denomination from annihilation, and even founded a nation. Such activities were matched only by his literary efforts. His writings covered a vast array of topics—from philology and textual criticism to theology, music, and social causes, especially the cause of freedom for the black slave. At all times, Sharp’s views of human dignity and freedom were grounded in scripture. Consequently, his writings gave theological articulation to the causes of liberty in three American wars: the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Civil War.

Why is this paper needed? For three reasons: (1) Granville Sharp’s name is well known in our circles, yet little is known about the man. (2) Indeed, very little is known about his famous rule—a rule which has been almost universally abused and misunderstood by grammarians and exegetes alike. (3) Further, while many evangelicals who wish to have an impact on society have difficulty finding a role model, Granville Sharp readily supplies one. His story begs to be told afresh.

The essay will therefore attempt three things: (1) a brief biographical sketch of one of orthodoxy’s forgotten heroes; (2) a sketch of his writings (including almost seventy books and pamphlets); and (3) an overview and (brief) defense of his rule of Greek grammar.

A Short Life of Granville Sharp

Granville Sharp² is one of the great forgotten “heroes”³ of history. His biographers sing his praises at every turn. His chief biographer, Prince Hoare (who penned a two-volume, 900-page work on Sharp’s life), goes so far as to say that at the outset of his investigations he intended, out of respect for the dead, to “draw a veil over some peculiarities of Mr. Sharp’s character.” When he finished his well-researched and comprehensive biography, he happily found Sharp’s “character to be of that high and dignified nature, to leave no necessity for such a precaution.…  I see nothing to veil … ”⁴ Granville Sharp was one of a rare breed of men whose life was characterized by a blend of piety, social conscience, scholarship, and Christian grace. Although that which has primarily concerned evangelicals—his Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article (and the famous rule found in that work)—is but a small chapter in his own life⁵ (as it is only one of scores of works published by the man), it may be helpful to see this slender tome in the broader context of Sharp’s life and achievements.

Granville Sharp was born on 10 November 1735 in Durham, England to a heritage of Christian piety and scholarship. He was the youngest of numerous children⁶ born to Dr. Thomas Sharp and Judith Sharp (née Wheler). Thomas Sharp, a prolific religious writer,⁷ the Archdeacon of Northumberland, was the youngest son born to Dr. John Sharp, Dean of Canterbury (1689-91) and Archbishop of York (1691-1714).⁸ Thomas’ eldest son, John, was to become the trustee of Bamburgh Castle in Northumberland⁹ and later take a part in the financial well-being of Granville. But the surgeon, William, and the engineer-inventor, James,¹⁰ both becoming quite affluent, were to figure most prominently in their younger sibling’s adult life.

As the youngest child, Granville received a negligible stipend for his education, the bulk of his father’s designated funds going to the training of the two eldest sons. He became an apprentice for a London linen-draper at the age of fourteen after receiving a minimal education which did not include even “the first rudiments of the learned languages … ”¹¹ Over the next three years Sharp acquired some knowledge of both Greek and Hebrew, in response to the challenges of a Socinian and a Jew—both of whom claimed that his interpretations of scripture were faulty because they were not based on the original tongues. By 1758 both parents had died, leaving Sharp with a measure of freedom about his occupation. He obtained an appointment in the ordnance office, gaining the status of clerk seven years later. By 1765 Sharp had, without tutor or formal instruction,¹² honed his skills in both Greek and Hebrew, though at the sacrifice of sleep and social life.¹³

In that same year he published what was thought to be his first book,¹⁴ a slender volume dealing with OT textual criticism.¹⁵ It was a critique of a paper written by Dr. Benjamin Kennicott who had outlined plans for introducing textual variants into the text of his forthcoming Hebrew Bible.¹⁶ Sharp’s critique, followed by correspondence and visits with Kennicott, persuaded the Oxford scholar to leave the text intact and place the variants culled from over six hundred MSS in an apparatus criticus at the bottom of each page.¹⁷ Sharp’s acumen in biblical studies was such that he assumed no pretense about the infallibility of the MT;¹⁸ but he thought it imprudent to bury the readings of the MT in the apparatus when the science of OT textual criticism was still in its infant stages. Thus, part of the reason that the Hebrew Bible has continued, even to the present, to be a diplomatic text (based on a single MS)—as opposed to an eclectic text—is due to the influence that an untrained clerk had on the great Hebraist of the day, Benjamin Kennicott.

In the same year the course of Sharp’s life took a dramatic turn that was to mark the rest of his days. A young African slave by the name of Jonathan Strong had been pistol-whipped by his master almost to the point of death. Abandoned, Strong somehow made his way to Dr. William Sharp’s house where he was nursed back to health. During this time Granville found out about the boy. Once Strong was healthy, the master demanded his return. What followed was a two-year legal battle in which Sharp prepared his case by studying English law,¹⁹ culminating in his third book, On the Injustice of tolerating Slavery in England.²⁰ Without protracting this section beyond the purposes of our inquiry, suffice it to say here that Sharp’s antagonists were intimidated sufficiently never to bring the case to trial. Sharp had won: Jonathan Strong was a free man.²¹

Sharp’s brilliance in both biblical studies and English law, motivated by compassion and truth, prompted his uncle, the Rev. Granville Wheler, to encourage him to enter the ministry. Sharp turned down the offer, feeling both inadequate intellectually to take up the course of study required of a minister, and sensing that he could do the Church more good as a layman.²² This decision would come back to haunt him thirty-one years later, when his Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article was published.²³

Over the next several years Sharp gained notoriety in the cause of abolition. He was called on to help in the cases of John Hylas (1768) and Thomas Lewis (1770-71), both of which came to the desired verdicts.²⁴ But these were only individual victories; something on a larger scale needed to be accomplished. The case of James Somerset (1772) was carefully chosen by Sharp to set a precedent in England. Somerset had been a slave in Virginia. When brought to England on the business of his master, he was still a slave. Somerset’s lawyers argued that either none of the laws of Virginia applied in England or else all of them did.²⁵ After a lengthy trial, the judgment was declared on 22 June 1772 by Lord Mansfield: “As soon as any slave sets his foot on English ground, he becomes free.”²⁶ Ironically, since Sharp was not a lawyer, he was not openly involved in the proceedings: “although Granville directed the whole of the prosecution in behalf of Somerset, he did not profess, nor even acknowledge, his concern in it, to any but those who acted immediately with himself.”²⁷

In spite of his largely low-key efforts, Sharp’s name became so strongly attached to the cause of abolition that his opinions were respected by important figures on both sides of the Atlantic. Over many years, he heavily influenced, through frequent correspondence and personal contact, Anthony Benezet (a major abolitionist in Philadelphia), Benjamin Rush, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams in America; John Wesley, William Wilberforce, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Dukes of Richmond and Gloucester in England; General Lafayette of France, and many others.²⁸

Sharp’s involvement with many influential people in the Colonies at this time contributed to their fight for freedom from the British Crown. He “became unintentionally, though not unconsciously, an instrument in the great work of American Independence.”²⁹ As his political involvement was always on the side of liberty, in 1774 Sharp published A Declaration of the People’s natural Rights to a Share in the Legislature, which is the fundamental Principle of the British Constitution. When Benjamin Franklin was in England that summer, Sharp gave him 250 copies of the tract. Franklin dispatched them to America the same day. Once in America several presses throughout the Colonies immediately reprinted the book. A press in Boston alone turned out 7000 copies.³⁰

Incidentally, there is some evidence that this slender volume may have influenced Thomas Jefferson, both verbally and conceptually. A cursory look at Sharp’s work suggests some remarkable similarities with the Declaration of Independence.³¹ Nevertheless, establishing literary dependence in a case such as this is notoriously difficult and quite beyond the scope of this paper.³²

When news that war had broken out reached Sharp the next year, he took leave of his duties in the ordnance office, not wishing to have anything to do with the war. The letter to his employer reveals his reason: “I cannot return to my ordnance duty whilst a bloody war is carried on, unjustly as I conceive, against my fellow-subjects … ”³³ When it became clear that the war would be protracted, Sharp resigned his post on 10 April 1777. Since he had no means of support, his brothers mutually agreed to take on the burden of his financial needs.³⁴ Being now freed from the long and taxing hours at the ordnance office, Sharp began to devote himself more thoroughly to his studies and to religious and social causes.³⁵

One such cause was taking shape because of America’s new independence. Up until America severed political ties with England, Episcopal clergy had sworn allegiance to the throne. Now that that was impossible, there was, de jure, no Episcopal church in America.³⁶ Sharp began to work for an independent Episcopal church as soon as he realized the Colonies could not be brought back under England’s rule.³⁷ As with the abolition issue, Sharp worked strenuously behind the scenes. He was the principal liaison between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the American church.³⁸ On 4 August 1784, when the Archbishop had authorized the ordination of priests, Sharp was not satisfied; he wanted the ordination of bishops as well. He continued to argue with the Archbishop, in writing and in person, on the justice and necessity of such a measure. And he continued to encourage the Americans not to give up the fight. Finally, in 1787, “In consequence of the repeated assurances, which Mr. Sharp had been thus authorised to give to the Convention of the Episcopal clergy at Philadelphia, of the readiness on the part of the English Church to consecrate proper persons, two Bishops were elected, Dr. White for Pennsylvania, and Dr. Provost for New York … ”³⁹ When they arrived in England Granville Sharp thus presented them to the Archbishop of Canterbury to be consecrated on 4 February 1787.⁴⁰ His hoped-for satisfaction of “being the first mover and promoter”⁴¹ of an independent Episcopacy in America had come to fruition.

Sharp’s connection with America was continuing to grow. Esteem for him had risen to the point that in the space of five years (1786-91) Sharp had been granted honorary membership in two abolition societies and had received three honorary doctorates.⁴² His affection for the United States was displayed by his numerous and substantial donations to college and public libraries, as well as to one black church.⁴³ Further, not a few of his books and pamphlets were specifically directed to politics and religion in America.⁴⁴

Sharp’s influence and magnanimity stretched both west and south. Before the chapter on American Episcopacy had been closed, Sharp’s attention turned toward Africa. After the American Revolution many former slaves who had fought on the side of the British were now homeless in the streets of London. A Mr. Smeathman suggested to them the possibility of establishing a colony of freed slaves on the west coast of Africa. Eager but cautious, they came to Sharp for advice. After careful investigation about the feasibility, Smeathman and Sharp together laid plans for a free colony in Sierra Leone. At the very inception of the undertaking, Smeathman died (c. 15 April 1786),⁴⁵ leaving Sharp with the burden of adding flesh to the plan.⁴⁶ Over a quarter million acres of land, including an excellent harbor (St. George’s Bay), were purchased from a native chief. Four hundred former slaves and about sixty Europeans, mostly women, took the maiden voyage to the new colony in April 1787. Sharp was able to procure both ships and funds from the British government for those who chose to relocate.⁴⁷ Out of gratitude for “their original protector and friend” the colonists named their first settlement Granvilletown.⁴⁸ The name was later changed to Freetown and “Granvilletown” was the name given to the second settlement.⁴⁹ In spite of many struggles with slave-traders, the French, and disease, the little colony grew and became established.⁵⁰ Throughout the nineteenth century Sierra Leone became “the center of Western intellectual life in … West Africa.”⁵¹ Its borders expanded through acquisitions from local chiefs. In 1961 it became an independent state; ten years later, a republic. The census of 1991 records over four million inhabitants.

Concurrent with the establishing of Sierra Leone and because of the high visibility of this colony and Sharp’s relationship to it, the fight for abolition was able to reach a new plane. Although Sharp had won the freedom of slaves in England, the British Empire still allowed the slave trade. A committee met on 22 May 1787 for the expressed purpose of abolishing this trade. The designation given to the group was the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade. All members of the committee approved of this name except Sharp. He wanted “slavery” to be part of the title as his intention was to eradicate both the trade and its results from the British Empire.⁵² The majority won out for the time being; even though its name never changed, Sharp, the idealist, won out in the end (when slavery was abolished in 1833).

Granville Sharp was elected to chair the committee, being recognized as the “father of the cause in England”;⁵³ William Wilberforce was its main spokesman. Beginning in 1789 Wilberforce addressed the Parliament with a series of bills which would ultimately ban slavery. The proposals were tabled until the following year; when renewed, they were defeated. Thus began a battle both within Parliament and among the populace over the slave-trade issue. Almost annually Wilberforce made his proposals. Though frequently passing in the House of Commons, they were always defeated in the House of Lords. While Wilberforce was eloquently arguing his case before the politicians, Sharp and the committee were disseminating information to the people of England.⁵⁴ Finally, in March 1807 a bill banning the trade passed both houses.⁵⁵

When the fight for abolition was drawing to a close, Sharp divided his attentions among other concerns. In 1804 he was unanimously elected (by about three hundred individuals) the first chairman of the newly formed British and Foreign Bible Society.⁵⁶ He remained in this role until his death in 1813. From the first report of the Society one gains an insight into Sharp’s linguistic capacity. One of his first acts was to donate almost forty different versions of the Bible and NT from his own library in modern and ancient Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Coptic, Latin, Ethiopic, Gothic, Syriac, French, German, Dutch, Irish, Scotch Gaelic, Mohawk, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, and Spanish, as well as another half dozen languages.⁵⁷ Although it would be gratuitous to assume that Sharp was well accquainted with all of these languages, it would be equally gratuitous to assume that his knowledge of even some of them was nonexistent.⁵⁸

Sharp also served on many other committees and societies in the last years of his life. Chief among them was the African Institution (founded in April 1807, one month after the slave-trade had been outlawed). The African Institution jointly owned, with his family, Sharp’s literary effects. Hoare’s Memoirs were commissioned under their auspices. Other groups of which Sharp was a member (and usually a director, sometimes chairman) included the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, the London Society for promoting Christianity among the Jews, Protestant Union, African Association, Refuge for the Destitute, Hibernian Society, Society for the Protection of Young Women, etc.⁵⁹

He thus remained true to his multifaceted calling of philanthropist, promoter of Christianity, and scholar. Though Sharp traveled extensively within England, he apparently never ventured outside his homeland (an interesting irony in light of his tremendous influence overseas). His life, which ended on 6 July 1813, was commemorated by many notable statesmen and churchmen. He was buried in the family vault in Fulham. A memorial was erected for him in the Poets’ Corner in Westminster Abbey. The Rev. John Owen, Rector of Paglesham in Essex, wrote his epitaph.⁶⁰ In 1816 the African Institution added a monument, next to the epitaph, in which many of his accomplishments were declared. As if to anticipate a response of incredulity, a note was added to the monument: “IF, ON PERUSING THIS TRIBUTE TO A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, THOU SHOULDEST BE DISPOSED TO SUSPECT IT AS PARTIAL, OR TO CENSURE IT AS DIFFUSE, KNOW THAT IT IS NOT PANEGYRIC, BUT HISTORY.” The memorials did not stop at his graveside, however. In 1824 a bust of Sharp was erected in the Council Chamber at the Court of Common Council in Guildhall, London, inscribed with the following: “GRANVILLE SHARP, TO WHOM ENGLAND OWES THE GLORIOUS VERDICT OF HER HIGHEST COURT OF LAW, THAT THE SLAVE WHO SETS HIS FOOT ON BRITISH GROUND BECOMES AT THAT INSTANT FREE.”⁶¹

In sum, the man after whom a rule of Greek grammar was named was known more for his heart than his mind. Philanthropist, abolitionist, scholar⁶² and linguist, Sharp’s legacy was to live on in the lives he touched. Though a lifelong bachelor, Sharp was a father of many causes,⁶³ the bulk of which he could claim no vested interest in. As one friend put it, Sharp was “a churchman in faith, in charity a universalist.”⁶⁴

The Writings of Granville Sharp

By any account Granville Sharp’s literary fruits were as profound as they were versatile, as scholarly as they were passionate. In his close to seventy volumes,⁶⁵ he addressed topics from abolition to the pronunciation of biblical Hebrew, from agriculture to lessons in reading music. Some works were mere pamphlets, comprising as few as two or three pages; others were substantial and scholarly pieces, involving several hundred pages. Most were written in English, though three were in French.⁶⁶ He was productive even in his early years (1765-1777) while virtually enslaved (as he put it)⁶⁷ to his job at the ordnance office, completing his first eighteen books and pamphlets in his rather limited spare time.⁶⁸

A topical breakdown of Sharp’s works reveals something of his general interests.⁶⁹

Social Concerns, Government, English Law—41

Abolition—14

Against Duelling—2

Against Impressing Seamen⁷⁰—2

Agriculture—3

Military Defense—7

Relief for the Poor—2

Right of Representation, Principles of Democracy—10

Other—1

Religious Issues—22

Biblical Studies—(16)

Old Testament:

Textual Criticism—1

Grammar—2

Exegesis and Theology—3

New Testament:

Translation Principles—1

Grammar—1

Exegesis—2

Theology (especially on prophecy—5

Miscellaneous—1

Applied Ecclesiology
(Episcopalianism, Quakerism, Roman Catholicism)—(6)

English Language—3

Pronunciation—2

Reading Primer for Children—1

Music—1

In spite of his complete lack of formal training in biblical criticism, English law, linguistics, and philology, Sharp was regarded as an expert in them all. The accolades pronounced upon his works were not from generalists and laymen, but from some of the best scholars of the day. The response to his work in the law is documented in the courts of England: the slave-trade and ultimately slavery were abolished because of the catalyst Sharp provided. In biblical criticism⁷¹ and philology, we merely note the following. Christopher Wordsworth, who would later become Master of Trinity College, Cambridge University, extensively praised Sharp’s work on the Greek article, even penning a book defending the rule in patristic Greek. Thomas Fanshaw Middleton (whose grammar on the article in Greek is still regarded as the finest treatment ever done) devoted fifteen pages to a discussion and defense of Sharp’s rule.⁷² Dr. Henry Lloyd, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, lauded Sharp for his insights into the pronunciation of Hebrew,⁷³ as did Bishop Horsley on Sharp’s new insights on Hebrew syntax—especially on the waw-consecutive.⁷⁴ A refrain seen in many reviews, regardless of the nature of the topic, was that Sharp’s treatment was the finest in print, the ablest defense of a view, a great insight which would stand the test of time.

Letters from those who knew him only through his writings frequently addressed him as “Rev[erend],”⁷⁵ a designation that implied, in the least, a recognition of formal training in biblical and classical languages and biblical studies. When his Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article was published, Sharp’s Socinian adversaries, however, seized his Achilles’ heel in this matter. Their frequent ad hominem attacks often unmasked a lack of substance in argument.

Sharp’s
Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article

Remarks and the Granville Sharp Rule

The only tome Sharp wrote on any aspect of NT grammar was a monograph on the Greek article, appearing in 1798 and bearing the title, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament: Containing many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, from Passages which are wrongly Translated in the Common English Version.⁷⁶ The slender volume (which, when originally published, contained less than sixty pages) had actually been written twenty years earlier,⁷⁷ but remained dormant until a friend and scholar urged Sharp to get it published.⁷⁸ Most likely an outgrowth of his extensive treatise on the Trinity published in 1777,⁷⁹ this little book was destined to become the center of a linguistic and theological storm and the only piece in biblical studies for which Sharp is remembered.

The Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article went through four editions in ten years.⁸⁰ What may be of interest to note here is that the second and subsequent editions include excerpts from a lengthy rebuttal of Sharp’s Remarks by one pseudonymously named Gregory Blunt.⁸¹ The pun was not missed by Sharp: his last edition (1807) adds a twenty-six page preface (ix-xxxiv) in which he interacts with Blunt. Several exchanges were more rhetorical than substantive, dealing with the word-play between Sharp and Blunt.

In this work Sharp articulated six principles of syntax involving the Greek article, though what has commonly become known as “Sharp’s rule” is the first of these. It is the only rule which directly impacts the christologically significant passages and hence, “it is of much more consequence than the rest … ”⁸² As the weapon by which Sharp made his theological jabs against Socinians, it is this rule which has been largely debated, misunderstood, and abused. Sharp’s definition of it is as follows.

When the copulative και connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person … ⁸³

In the statement of this rule, Sharp only discussed substantives (i.e., nouns, substantival adjectives, substantival participles) of personal description, not those which referred to things, and only in the singular, not the plural. But whether he intended the rule to apply to impersonal nouns and/or plurals can hardly be determined from this definition. As well, he did not clearly exclude proper names from the rule’s application. However, a perusal of his monograph reveals that he felt the rule could be applied absolutely only to personal, singular, non-proper nouns. For example, two pages later he points out that “there is no exception or instance of the like mode of expression, that I know of, which necessarily requires a construction different from what is here laid down, EXCEPT the nouns be proper names, or in the plural number; in which case there are many exceptions … ”⁸⁴ Later on he explicitly states that impersonal constructions are within the purview of his second, third, fifth, and sixth rules, but not the first.⁸⁵ In an appendix Sharp refutes Blunt for bringing in impersonal constructions as exceptions to the rule.⁸⁶

In other words, in the construction article-noun-καί-noun, Sharp delineated four requirements which he felt needed to be met if the two nouns were necessarily to be seen as having the same referent:⁸⁷ both nouns must be (1) personal—i.e., they must refer to a person, not a thing; (2) common epithets—i.e., not proper names; (3) in the same case;⁸⁸ and (4) singular in number.⁸⁹ The significance of these requirements can hardly be overestimated, for those who have misunderstood Sharp’s rule have done so almost without exception because they were unaware of the restrictions that Sharp set forth.

The bulk of Sharp’s Remarks was a discussion of eight christologically significant texts (Acts 20:28; Eph 5:5; 2 Thess 1:12; 1 Tim 5:21; 2 Tim 4:1; Titus 2:13; 2 Pet 1:1; Jude 4), encompassing more than two-thirds of the body of the work.⁹⁰ Thus, for example, Sharp regarded τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ in Titus 2:13 to refer to one person: “of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” Sharp backed up the validity of his arguments with twenty-five non-christologically significant examples which he believed were undisputed in their semantic force.⁹¹ Included in his disquisition are the following illustrations.⁹²

Sharp’s judgment was that in these texts “the sense is so plain that there can be no controversy.”⁹³ As is evident even without a context, his assessment was correct. None of the rest of Sharp’s examples required any discussion either, as is obvious from the reactions to his work: no one disputed the validity of these examples. A number of other things were disputed, however, especially the validity of such texts for the christologically pregnant passages.

Nearly Two Centuries of Abuse

The reactions to Sharp’s rule over the next two centuries cannot be easily summarized.⁹⁴ Our discussion will be necessarily truncated. Not one of Sharp’s critics ever demonstrated an invalid example within the pages of the New Testament. Calvin Winstanley, however, was able to produce four classes of exceptions to Sharp’s rule in Greek literature outside the NT.⁹⁵ Nevertheless, none of these exceptions impacted in any way the christologically pregnant texts that Sharp’s rule was aimed at.⁹⁶

Three years after Winstanley’s book appeared, a volume dedicated to the usage of the Greek article was published. The Doctrine of the Greek Article Applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament, written by the first Bishop of Calcutta, Thomas Fanshaw Middleton,⁹⁷—a work still highly regarded among NT grammarians today⁹⁸—gave an extensive treatment on the use of the article in classical Greek, followed by hundreds of pages of exegetical discussions of the article in the NT. Middleton clearly felt the force of Sharp’s rule and lent it credibility from the circle of philology. He believed that Sharp’s canon was valid both for the NT and classical Greek. In addition, he understood the restrictions of the rule to personal, singular, non-proper names.

After Middleton, the next major player was Georg Benedict Winer, the great Greek grammarian of the nineteenth century. Winer’s assessment of Titus 2:13 is as follows:

In Tit. ii. 13… considerations derived from Paul’s system of doctrine lead me to believe that σωτῆρος is not a second predicate, co-ordinate with θεοῦ…

… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …

[In n 2 at the bottom of the same page] In the above remarks it was not my intention to deny that, in point of grammar, σωτῆρος ἡμῶν may be regarded as a second predicate, jointly depending on the article τοῦ; but the dogmatic conviction derived from Paul’s writings that this apostle cannot have called Christ the great God induced me to show that there is no grammatical obstacle to our taking the clause καὶ σωτ.… Χριστοῦ by itself, as referring to a second subject.⁹⁹

What is most interesting about Winer’s comments on this text is that though he advances no real grammatical arguments, because he was a highly regarded grammarian he was apparently able to cancel out, by the intimidation of his own opinion, the use of Sharp’s rule in these passages. This statement virtually sounded the death knell to Sharp’s rule. Ironically, what Winstanley could not do in a tightly argued, compact book of fifty-five pages (all in eight-point type), Winer did in a single footnote!

Proof of this is readily available. For example, J. H. Moulton is strongly influenced by Winer’s comment on Titus 2:13, reading it as though borne from a sober grammatical judgment. In his Prolegomena he writes: “We cannot discuss here the problem of Tit 213, for we must, as grammarians, leave the matter open: see WM 162, 156n.”¹⁰⁰ Other scholars have followed suit. Some scholars explicitly cite Winer as their authority for doubting the grammatical perspicuity of the construction;¹⁰¹ others, though not mentioning Winer by name, consider the grammar to be vague.¹⁰²

Winer’s influence, then, seems sufficiently to account for the neglect of Sharp’s rule in discussions of christologically significant passages where it would otherwise be applied. But what about the abuse of the rule? Almost without exception, those who seem to be acquainted with Sharp’s rule and agree with its validity misunderstand it and abuse it. This widespread misunderstanding shows no partiality—grammarians, exegetes, and theologians alike are culpable. Typically, the rule is usually perceived to extend to plural and impersonal constructions—in spite of the fact that Sharp restricted the rule to personal singular nouns. What are the reasons for such abuse? For one thing, as we have seen, the statement of Sharp’s rule is not clear—only an examination of his monograph explicitly reveals his requirement of personal singular nouns. Secondly, the last clear statement of the limitations of Sharp’s canon in any major work was published over one hundred and fifty years ago—in Thomas Fanshaw Middleton’s Doctrine of the Greek Article.¹⁰³

For whatever reason, modern grammarians have perpetuated the ambiguity of the original statement, bypassing Middleton’s clear articulation of the rule altogether. To take but three examples: A. T. Robertson, in his large grammar, discusses the article-noun-καί-noun construction quite extensively. He was well acquainted with Sharp’s rule—in fact, he was an adamant defender of its validity.¹⁰⁴ However, without interacting with either Sharp or Middleton on the point, he felt that the rule applied to impersonal nouns as well as personal.¹⁰⁵ Second, Dana and Mantey—on whose grammar many American students have been weaned—actually reproduce (almost) verbatim Sharp’s rule, but neglect to specify more clearly the limitations.¹⁰⁶ And third, in his recent intermediate grammar, Stanley Porter states, “Unfortunately, this rule has been widely misunderstood.”¹⁰⁷ But Porter both misstates the rule (ignoring the restriction to personal substantives) and, consequently, applies Sharp's canon to an impersonal construction (Eph 3:18).¹⁰⁸ Robertson, Dana and Mantey, and Porter are simply the tip of the iceberg of grammarians’ misunderstanding of Sharp’s canon.¹⁰⁹

The reason, therefore, for the abuse of the rule seems to be that few have taken the time to read Sharp’s Remarks or Middleton’s Doctrine of the Greek Article—in spite of the fact that “Sharp’s rule” is still, here and there, mentioned with approbation. And the reason that few have actually read Sharp or Middleton,¹¹⁰ it seems, is either inaccessibility or the natural tendency in biblical studies to think that only the most recent literature makes much of a contribution.¹¹¹

The upshot of the present-day imprecise knowledge of Sharp’s limitations is that those who invoke his canon on behalf of the argument for Christ’s deity in Titus 2:13, etc., since they include plurals and impersonals in the rule, are unable to regard the rule as absolute. Since these same scholars find exceptions to what they perceive to be the rule, they can only regard it as a general principle. For example, Murray J. Harris, in his otherwise excellent and detailed article, “Titus 2:13 and the Deity of Christ” (in F. F. Bruce’s second Festschrift), makes much of the argument that “two co-ordinate nouns referring to the same person are customarily linked by a single article.”¹¹² Yet he gives in defense of this proposition three proof texts—two of which involve nouns in the plural (which even he concedes do not speak of identity and thus they contradict his version of Sharp’s rule)!¹¹³ Harris is hardly alone in his misunderstanding of Sharp’s rule; indeed, he simply follows in a long train of exegetes who have been unaware of the restrictions laid down by Sharp.¹¹⁴

To sum up, the validity of Sharp’s canon was called into question, on theological grounds, by the great grammarian of the nineteenth century, Georg Benedict Winer. His stature as a grammarian, even though he spoke in this instance outside his realm, has apparently brought about the neglect of the rule in the vast majority of studies of these passages in this century. Consequently, and certainly related to this, the rule has been abused even by those who agree with its validity,¹¹⁵ because the limitations which Sharp laid down are almost never observed (in large measure because they have not been printed in any major work in the last one hundred and fifty years).

Nevertheless, when properly understood, Sharp’s canon is clearly valid for the NT. And the exceptions to the rule that Winstanley articulated in no way impinge on the christologically significant texts.¹¹⁶ As Robertson quipped, “Winer did not make out a sound case against Sharp’s principle as applied to 2 Peter i. 1 and Titus ii. 13. Sharp stands vindicated after all the dust has settled.”¹¹⁷

Conclusion

If this essay were to lack a conclusion, the inattentive might think that we have been discussing three different men. Indeed, it is perhaps most surprising to find that Sharp, the thoroughly orthodox NT scholar, was a layman, and was far better known for abolishing slavery than for his rule of Greek grammar.

If I may be permitted a pastoral reflection: there is a temptation for those in academia to think that to excel—to make a real contribution in our field—we must never venture outside this realm. Further, evangelical scholars often question the doctrinal convictions of those who are social activists. Granville Sharp shows that that is a false dichotomy. But lest we think that the world has changed, that no Granville Sharps could be found in today’s society, it may be helpful to note some similarities between his age and ours.

J. C. D. Clark, perhaps the leading authority on eighteenth-century English history, wrote: “The correlation between theological heterodoxy and a preference for political reform was strong, but not exclusive. Exceptions stood out, however. One was Granville Sharp … a Trinitarian … ”¹¹⁸

And John Adams, when he was American ambassador in London, in a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette (31 January 1786), stated that Granville Sharp was “very amiable & benevolent in his dispositions, and a voluminous writer, but as Zealously attached to the Episcopacy & and the Athanasian Creed as he is to civil and religious Liberty—a mixture which in this country is not common.”¹¹⁹

Even in his day, Sharp stood against the tide. Precisely because of this, he is a model for us today as well.

¹ Quite coincidentally, this draft was completed on 10 November 1995, the 260th anniversary of Granville Sharp’s birth. It is equally coincidental that this paper was originally delivered in Philadelphia, the American city with which Sharp had the strongest connections.

²There are numerous secondary sources for Sharp’s life, although with many discrepancies and errors of fact—cf., e.g., Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, ed. by J. McClintock and J. Strong (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1880) 9.620-21; Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (Cambridge: University Press, 1911) 24. 809-810; Encyclopedia Americana (Danbury, CN: Grolier, 1988) 24.673. (Surprisingly, Collier’s Encyclopedia has no entry on Sharp, either in the 1974 edition [New York: Macmillan] or in the 1921 edition [New York: P. F. Collier & Son]).

The primary materials, however, are few and not readily available. The most accurate sources are the following: (1) Two authoritative biographies: Prince Hoare, Memoirs of Granville Sharp, Esq. composed from his own Manuscripts and other Authentic Documents in the Possession of his Family and of the African Institution, 2d ed. (London: Henry Colburn, 1828) 2 vols. (consisting of 438 and 482 pages respectively); and Charles Stuart, A Memoir of Granville Sharp (New York: American Anti-Slavery Society, 1836). Stuart’s biography is substantially briefer (only 156 pages, 67 of which are two of Sharp’s own writings included as an appendix) and is highly selective, dealing almost exclusively with Sharp’s role in the abolition of slavery. (2) Sharp’s own published writings which are quite extensive. See the following section on Sharp’s writings for a brief discussion. (3) Correspondence between Sharp and others, journal entries, and memoranda. These include “twelve large boxes of MSS” (Hoare, Memoirs, 1.258), only a small fraction of which are accessible in the United States (and hence have been at least cursorily examined for this paper). (4) Thomas Clarkson, History of the Abolition of the Slave Trade (London: J. W. Parker, 1839). (5) A collection of materials by and about Sharp belonging to the British and Foreign Bible Societies, now housed in the Bradshaw Room of the Cambridge University Library, Cambridge, England. The brief sketch that follows is based for the most part on Hoare’s Memoirs (as the Stuart memoir was derived almost in its entirety from Hoare [Stuart, Memoir, 70], published to incite the cause of abolition in the United States), supplemented occasionally by a few of Sharp’s letters, manuscripts, and books, as well as some materials authored by others.

³Hoare, Memoirs, 1.xxvii: “although the Memoirs of Granville Sharp do not furnish the history of a hero, in the ordinary acceptation of that name, I am persuaded, by my own feelings, that there are few who will not find him to have been one … ” In particular, William Wilberforce referred to him as such.

⁴Ibid., 1.xxix.

⁵Stuart gives it only half a sentence, and then only implicitly (“Collision with a Socinian, who boasted that the original language of the New Testament favored his views, led Sharp to study the Greek … ” [Memoir, 1]) while Hoare devotes eight pages to this topic (Memoirs, 2.360-67), less than one percent of the two-volume biography.

⁶Eight of whom reached adulthood (Hoare, Memoirs, 1.24, 41).

⁷Among other works, he wrote Concio ad Clerum for his doctor’s degree at Trinity College, Cambridge (1729), The Rubric in the Book of Common Prayer (1753), and Two Dissertations on the Hebrew Words Elohim and Berith (1751). Cf. Cyclopedia, 9.621; Hoare, Memoirs, 1.23-24.

⁸Sharp was Archbishop till his death, though there is some doubt as to its date: 2 February 1713 or 2 February 1714 (see Hoare, Memoirs, 1.19). He was the last Archbishop of York to be buried at Yorkminster.

⁹Ibid., 1.26.

¹⁰James is the man to whom England “is indebted for the first establishment of its inland navigation” (Hoare, Memoirs, 1.34).

¹¹Ibid., 1.41.

¹²Ibid., 2.234.

¹³Ibid., 1.45-46, 192-93. After several years of working for the government, Sharp explained his inconsistent and tardy correspondences. To Dr. Rutherford (24 August 1774) he wrote: “We keep no holidays in the Ordnance, as in other public offices, and I am stationed in the most laborious post in the whole office; so that, as my time is not my own, I profess myself entirely incapable of holding a literary correspondence. What little time I have been able to save from sleep at night, and early in a morning, has been necessarily employed in the examination of some points of law …” And to Anthony Benezet (7 July 1773) he penned, “I am really a sort of slave myself,” a somber and telltale note which by this time revealed the empathetic motives that were to characterize his life.

¹⁴Although Hoare calls this his first book (Memoirs, 1.194), in Sharp’s handwritten catalog of his published works he lists A short Account of that Part of Africa inhabited by Negroes, stating that it was “first printed at Philadelphia in 1762” (catalog transcribed by Hoare, Memoirs, 2.343). This work stands fifth in the list of his published works because its first British publication date was 1768.

¹⁵Remarks on a printed Paper lately handed about, intituled, “A Catalogue of the Sacred Vessels restored by Cyrus, and of the Chief Jews who returned at first from the Captivity; together with the Names of the returning Families, and the Number of the Persons at that Time in each Family: Disposed in such a Manner, as to shew most clearly the great Corruption of Proper Names and Numbers in the present Text of the Old-Testament” (London: B. White, 1765). A second edition appeared in 1775.

¹⁶This became a two-volume work, published in Oxford 1776-80, based on the MT of E. van der Hooght, Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum variis lectionibus (1705). Kennicott’s work is still valuable today.

¹⁷Hoare, Memoirs, 1.194-203, 2. 341-42. Cf. also E. Würthwein, Text of the Old Testament, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 38. Hoare effervesces over the David vs. Goliath proportions of Sharp’s accomplishment (Memoirs, 1.195): “The singularity of the subject, the confidence with which his enterprise was supported, and the success with which it was finally attended, form one of the most remarkable incidents in literary annals.”

¹⁸Hoare, Memoirs, 1.200, quoting Sharp’s letter to the Rev. Mr. Percy (23 March 1768): “I never contended for the absolute integrity of the printed Hebrew Bibles … ”

¹⁹Some secondary sources state that Sharp had been educated for the bar (e.g., Cyclopaedia 9.620). This was not the case. This false belief was promoted even by those who worked closely with Sharp. In the collection of papers belonging to the British and Foreign Bible Societies, now housed in the Bradshaw Room of the Cambridge University Library, Cambridge, England, is a beautifully handwritten MS entitled “Granville Sharp (Philanthropist).” Apparently this document is a eulogy commissioned by the General Committee of the BFBS on August 6, 1813. In this short piece we are told that Sharp was “educated for the bar, but never practised.”

Sharp’s interest in the law was borne out of the sufferings of the black man, Jonathan Strong. As Hoare remarks, “his extraordinary action in behalf of the African race did not take its rise in theory, but was elicited by the occurrence of natural circumstances” (Memoirs, 1.51-52). Sharp himself admits that he “had never once opened a law book, to consult it, till on occasion of the present cause” (Hoare, Memoirs, 1.55, quoting an unspecified MS from Sharp’s remains). His biographer adds that “In his difficult task of legal inquiry, he had no instructor; no assistant, except his own diligence; no encourager, except his own conscience” (ibid., 59). This is the more remarkable since his adversary, the master of the slave, was himself a lawyer, David Lisle.

²⁰Sharp had circulated a MS to Lisle and his attorneys. This MS was to become the book two years later (1769).

²¹The tenacity and genius of Sharp with reference to this case are well documented in Hoare, Memoirs, 1.47-68. Sharp’s accomplishment was celebrated early on in orthodox circles: among the collection of papers in the Bradshaw Room of Cambridge University is an illustrated gospel tract that uses this story to promote the gospel.

²²Letter to Granville Wheler, 26 November 1767 (recorded in Hoare, Memoirs, 1.69-70).

²³In particular he felt that one advantage he had over a minister in the areas of apologetics and interpretation was that he would not be expected to have studied an issue thoroughly. It was precisely because of his lack of formal training and partial preparation that his Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article would be ridiculed.

²⁴Hoare, Memoirs, 1.71-92.

²⁵Part of the defense’s argument was that the American colonies were not under Parliamentary law because “no Parliament can have a just right to enact laws for places which it does not represent” (Hoare, Memoirs, 1.118). It was this firm conviction that led Sharp to another major turning point in his life two years later.

²⁶Cf. ibid., 1.93-141. Sharp’s handwritten minutes of the verdict record his own convictions well, for he underlined the refrain constantly used, viz. “that England was too pure an Air for Slaves to breathe in … ” (Granville Sharp, minutes of the case involving James Somerset, [c. 22 June 1772 or later]).

²⁷Hoare, Memoirs, 1.108.

²⁸Hoare notes that “His reputation stood high in America, in consequence of his extraordinary acts of philanthropy; and the esteem of his general character had there become established on a far more extensive scale than in his own country” (Memoirs, 1.256). Besides Hoare, Memoirs passim, cf. especially correspondence from Anthony Benezet to Sharp (14 May 1772, 8 November 1772 et al.); correspondence between Benjamin Franklin and Granville Sharp in the Library of Congress’ Miscellaneous Manuscripts collection, and in Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Series 1, vol. 3 (New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1968) 162-66; correspondence from John Adams to Sharp (8 March 1786); M. D. Kennedy, Lafayette and Slavery: From his Letters to Thomas Clarkson and Granville Sharp (Easton, PA: American Friends of Lafayette, 1950); G. Sharp, Letter from Granville Sharp Esq., of London, to the Maryland Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, and the Relief of Free Negroes and others, unlawfully held in Bondage (Baltimore: Graham, Lundt, and Patton, 1793); G. Sharp, Extract of a Letter to a Gentleman in Maryland; wherein is Demonstrated the extreme Wickedness of Tolerating the Slave Trade, 4th ed. (London: Phillips and Fardon, 1806).

²⁹Hoare, Memoirs, 1.257.

³⁰Ibid., 1.182-83, 257.

³¹Only the first 46 pages of text dealt with America; the second half of the book is concerned with Ireland (the 40-page preface is essentially theological in nature). But even here there are many verbal and conceptual similarities with the American document. Note, for example, the following excerpts from Sharp’s volume (all italics in the original): “natural rights … plain conclusions … common sense” (1); “there can be no legal appearance of Assent without some degree of Representation” (4); “inequality … corrupt … natural Liberty … Tyrants, Traitors … ” (6); “It is manifest, therefore, that the constitutional government of England, even with all its defects, is infinitely better than any other form of government whereby the people are deprived of their just share in the legislature” (7); “Law, to bind all, must be assented to by all” (9); “no Tax can be levied, without manifest Robbery and Injustice, where this legal and constitutional Representation is wanting” (10); “contrary to the eternal … Laws of God, which are supreme” (11); “without their participation and assent … ” (11); “taxing the American Subjects without their Consent” (24); “Equity, Justice, and Liberty” (27); “their [Americans’] unalienable right to the same happy privileges by which the liberties of the mother-country have hitherto been maintained … by the people” (35); “disunion” (40); “treasonable” (41 and passim). There are hints here and there as well of impact on the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights (cf. especially 2-3, 4-5, 7-8, 10-15).

³²Still, four points are worth pondering: (1) Sharp’s tract reached America almost eighteen months before Thomas Paine’s Common Sense was published; (2) Jefferson admitted that his ideas were not original, but borrowed heavily from previous written sources (in a letter from Jefferson to James Madison, 30 August 1823); (3) Sharp’s volume circulated widely in the Colonies and was known by influential dignitaries such as Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, both of whom were originally assigned to help write the Declaration; (3) Sharp was an Englishman on the side of the Americans, a fact which would enhance the credibility of their cause, and almost certainly impact the wording and thinking of several American statesmen.

³³Quoted in Hoare, Memoirs, 1.185.

³⁴“He had expended the remains of his paternal inheritance and the fruits of his employment in acts of bounty; and the protector of the helpless stood himself without the means of sustenance. But the cordial attachment of his brothers (all now prosperous) brought them instantly around him” (ibid., 1.188-89).

³⁵Among other works produced at this time was a tract decrying the practice of impressing seamen entitled, An Address to the People of England, being the Protest of a private Person against every Suspension of Law that is liable to injure or endanger Personal Security. Though not listed in the catalog of works that he acknowledged writing, Remarks on Impressing Seamen (1777) was generally attributed to Sharp as well (Hoare, Memoirs, 1.247). This little pamphlet was reprinted in 1810 (n.p., n.p.) on the verge of the War of 1812. (Sharp thus twice became a catalyst on the side of the Americans—once with reference to the American Revolution and now with reference to the War of 1812.)

³⁶Cf. Hoare, Memoirs, 1.313; C. E. Olmstead, History of Religion in the United States (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1960) 221-24.

³⁷In his journal entry for 31 August 1779 he wrote that he had taken steps “for more than two years past, to persuade the Americans here in London of the necessity of adopting and introducing Episcopacy into America … ” (quoted in Hoare, Memoirs, 1.310).

³⁸Remarkably, as thorough as Olmstead’s History of Religion in the United States is, he fails to mention Sharp at all for the part he played. The account in Hoare is not to be discounted, for many of the very details of the story, including dates, principals, and motivations are identical. Further, Hoare’s account is far more comprehensive than Olmstead’s and the latter’s is slow to mention any of the English principals, including the Archbishop himself! Cf. Hoare, 1.314-342 with Olmstead, 221-24. (It is no less remarkable that Sharp does not merit the attention of Charles J. Abbey, The English Church and Its Bishops 1700-1800, 2 vols. [LondonL Longmans, Green, & Co., 1887] 2.184-90, in his discussion of the consecration of White and Provost [spelled “Provoost” in Abbey] or other incidents leading up to this event.)

³⁹Hoare, Memoirs, 1.331-32. Olmstead spells the second delegate’s name “Provoost.”

⁴⁰Hoare, Memoirs, 1.342. Once this was accomplished, Sharp then began to persuade the Archbishop about the Episcopacy in Canada (ibid., 1.347).

⁴¹Letter to his brother, Dr. John Sharp, c. 1779 (mentioned in Hoare, Memoirs, 1.310-11).

⁴²The Pennsylvania Society for promoting the Abolition of Slavery and the Relief of free Negroes (Sharp’s membership was conveyed in a letter by Benjamin Franklin, 9 June 1787); The New York Society for Abolition of Slavery (communicated to Sharp by John Jay, 1 September 1788); Doctor of Laws conferred by the College of Providence, Rhode Island (September 1786), University of Cambridge, Massachusetts (9 November 1790); University of Williamsburg, Virginia (c. 1791). Cf. Hoare, Memoirs, 1.374-81.

⁴³Sharp contributed to public libraries in New York, Philadelphia, and Virginia; college libraries at Harvard, Dartmouth, Yale, Princeton as well as several others (Hoare, Memoirs, 1.348-51). I have possession of a copy of one of Sharp’s letters (one that is not mentioned in Hoare) to the public library in Philadelphia (7 February 1785). In it he catalogs the titles which were donated by himself and his brother William. On this occasion William donated twenty-three books, all written by relatives (especially his grandfather and father); Granville donated eighteen books, all of which were versions of or aids for the Bible (such as concordances, Latin Vulgate, Stephanus text, etc.) and patristic works. The nature of the gift to the black church is unknown, as Sharp kept no record of his own letter. But a grateful reply for his recent “humane donation to our church” is mentioned (letter from the African Church of Philadelphia to Granville Sharp, 25 November 1793, mentioned in Hoare, Memoirs, 1.380-81).

⁴⁴See next section for a discussion.

⁴⁵Hoare, Memoirs, 2.16.

⁴⁶It is important to note that although Sharp did not initiate the plans for this colony he had contemplated such a colony three years before he and Smeathman were in contact (as noted in his journal entry of 1 August 1783, given in Hoare, Memoirs, 2.11-15). And once he collaborated with Smeathman, Sharp apparently authored the constitution by which the colony would govern itself (ibid., 2.15). He is thus justly considered as the father of Sierra Leone (ibid., 2.269).

⁴⁷Sharp’s principal contact was William Wilberforce. The friendly association of these two would play a large role in the annals of British abolition over the next three decades.

⁴⁸Hoare, Memoirs, 2.25. The name is variously spelled in Hoare: Granville Town, Granville-town, Granville Town, etc. Stuart spells it as we have it above (Memoir, 42).

⁴⁹Hoare, Memoirs, 2.131.

⁵⁰See a detailed history up until 1828 in Hoare, Memoirs, 2.1-182. The growth of the colony got its greatest momentum from the abolition of slavery in England in 1807.

⁵¹Collier's Encyclopedia (1974 ed.) 21.14, s.v. “Sierra Leone.”

⁵²Hoare, Memoirs, 2.233-36; cf. also Stuart, Memoir, 54-56, for insights on the committee’s debate.

⁵³Hoare, Memoirs, 2.230. In over seven hundred meetings of the committee, Sharp never sat in the chairman’s seat, but rather preferred the least conspicuous chair at the opposite end of the table (Hoare, Memoirs, 2.231).

⁵⁴One pamphlet, written by John Newton, had a rather significant impact. Since Newton had been a slave-trader himself (Thoughts upon the African Slave Trade [London: Buckland, 1788] 40), there was immediate credibility to his opinions. As a sidenote, one of the interesting comments in the treatise was Newton’s preference for the designation “Black” as opposed to “Negroe,” for those enslaved, calling the latter a “contemptuous” designation (ibid., 8).

⁵⁵For a detailed account of the committee’s work, cf. Hoare, Memoirs, 2.183-254.

⁵⁶Ibid., 2.256-60; John Owen, The History of the Origins and First Ten Years of the British and Foreign Bible Society (New York: James Easburn, 1817), 22. Elsewhere Owen gives the reasons why Sharp was chosen (83): “Perhaps it would not have been possible to find, throughout the British dominions, a man in whom the qualities requisite for the first Chairman of the British and Foreign Bible Society were so completely united as they were in this venerable philanthropist. A churchman in faith, in charity a universalist, he stamped upon the institution, while it was yet tender, those characters which suited its constitution and its end … ”

⁵⁷Hoare, Memoirs, 2.260-63. A letter of thanks on behalf of the Committee of the Bible Society, dated 9 January 1805, was penned by Lord Teignmouth (unpublished, in the possession of the BFBS Collection). Upon Sharp’s death, the Society noted that he was “the earliest and largest benefactor to their library” (resolution quoted in Hoare, Memoirs, 2.317). Alan F. Jesson, now curator of the “British and Foreign Bible Society’s Collection,” located in the Bradshaw Room of Cambridge University Library, has ably documented the early history of the Society in his “The Libraries of the British and Foreign Bible Society and the American Bible Society, New York: A Comparison” (M. L. S. dissertation, Loughborough University of Technology, 1977). He notes that not only was Sharp the first to respond to a public appeal for Bibles, but that Sharp also contributed in the second round of donations. This second round included a total of thirty-six books by twenty-two donors, showing how remarkable was Sharp’s first gift (Jesson, “Libraries,” 15).

⁵⁸In Sharp’s own hand is the list of Bibles he donated to the BFBS, recorded in the manuscript British & Foreign Bible Society Miscellaneous Book Commencing 1804, 1-4 (unpublished document in the British and Foreign Bible Society’s Collection). A look at this annotated list, together with a firsthand examination of the Bibles, did not reveal as much as I had hoped. But four points deserve mention: (1) A few of the Bibles were given to Sharp, but most were apparently gained by purchase. Not once does the name of his father or grandfather appear in them, suggesting that he bought them himself (thus, indicating that they were not kept as mere heirlooms, but probably served some utilitarian purpose). (2) He made few marks in the Bibles, even in the bilingual and trilingual Bibles and those which involve languages that Sharp had demonstrated a knowledge of (e.g., French, English, Latin, Greek). Thus, the absence of markings is no proof of a linguistic handicap. (3) Most of the Bibles were handsome folio or quarto editions, rendering them probably too expensive both to mark in and to have purchased on impulse. (The only Bible with extensive markings is the smallest in the collection, an octavo Spanish Testament from 1556). (4) A few of the Bibles do, however, have notes in Sharp’s handwriting, usually concerning the morphology and syntax of the language (e.g., Syriac, Gothic, Malaya, Hungarian/Magyar, Caledonian/Scotch Ga[e]lic, modern Greek, and Italian).

⁵⁹Cf. Hoare, Memoirs, 2.255-82.

⁶⁰Three years later Owen wrote to Hoare about Sharp’s character and accomplishments. Among other things he noted that “He had, in a measure, the spirit and power of Elijah” and that he had acquired, on his own, a good grasp of “French, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and the Syriac and Chaldee dialects” (25 March 1816, cited in Hoare, Memoirs, 2.333-35, quotations from 334).

⁶¹Cited in Hoare, Memoirs, 1.xxxix.

⁶²Though almost universally regarded as a scholar—most notably by the scholars of the day, Sharp adopted the opinion of some of his Socinian adversaries. When he was requested to peruse a biographical sketch of himself written up for a periodical, he objected to the glowing expressions of his academic prowess. In the margin he wrote the comment, “G. S. is by no means entitled to the character of ‘a good scholar, well read, &c.’ for he never read or studied more than what was unavoidably necessary on those few subjects which from time to time seemed to demand his unexperienced endeavors, on each particular occasion which excited his attention” (cited in Hoare, Memoirs, 2.355). His biographer poignantly noted, “Under the influence of this principle [of humility], he seems almost to have trespassed on veracity.”

⁶³He almost surely considered himself a father of the many he helped. The men and women of Sierra Leone, for example, he called “his ‘orphans’ and showed all a father’s spirit towards them” (Stuart, Memoir, 35).

⁶⁴Owen, British and Foreign Bible Society, 83.

⁶⁵Among Sharp’s remains was a catalog in his own hand of his published works, comprising sixty-three books or pamphlets (for a transcript of the catalog see Hoare, Memoirs, 2.341-54.) This catalog includes sixty-one numbered items. The discrepancy between these two numbers is to be accounted for as follows. Two of the items were each a seven-part series of pamphlets, later bound in one volume. Two items were counted twice, one for each edition. Eight items were documents written by others in reponse to Sharp’s works. This brings the total to sixty-three.

This does not account for all of his writings, however. It is believed that he wrote at least one more book anonymously (Hoare, Memoirs, 1.247). Further, even Sharp’s own records are not exhaustive. Not listed are An Essay on Slavery, Proving from Scripture its Inconsistency with Humanity and Religion (Burlington: Isaac Collins, 1772), and An Account of the Ancient Division of the English Nation into Hundreds and Tithings (London: Galabin and Baker, 1784). There may be others that could be added to this list, but which are unknown in the United States. In addition, he wrote a few other treatises which were not published because his adversaries recanted of their views before such tomes went to press, thus satisfying Sharp.

Hence, we have firm evidence of at least sixty-five published works from Sharp, a probable suspicion of at least one more work, knowledge of a few manuscripts which Sharp refrained from publishing, and a suspicion that some works though published are not catalogued in the libraries of the United States. The number seventy is thus a conservative figure.

⁶⁶E.g., Necessité et Moyens d’etablir la Force publique sur la Rotation continuelle du Service militaire, et la Representation nationale sur la Proportion exacte du Nombre des Citoyens (Paris: n.p., 1792), the most substantial of the three, dealt with the right of the populace to be organized according to frankpledge as a means of self-defense against a despotic government.

⁶⁷Correspondence to Anthony Benezet, 7 July 1773.

⁶⁸Some of these works were rather substantial (e.g., A Tract on the Law of Nature, and Principles of Action in Man [London: B. White, 1777], principally an exegetical-theological work which argued for evidence of the Trinity in the OT, comprising almost 450 pages). Sharp took a leave of absence from his duties in 1775, and although he did not resign his post until two years later, his time was his own beginning in 1775. Still, his first eleven works were published before he took his leave (1765-1774).

⁶⁹Many of his works overlap in their themes. Such works are listed by their main emphasis. Although we believe that Sharp wrote at least seventy published volumes, only sixty-six are listed here (for explanation, see note 65).

⁷⁰ The number for this category includes an anonymous work attributed to Sharp.

⁷¹One of the best evidences that Sharp had far more than a layman’s understanding of biblical studies can be seen in his views on textual criticism. As we have already noted, he recognized early on that the Masoretic Text did not always replicate the original (cf. above discussion of his first work, a book on OT textual criticism). And although he did not write any work on NT textual criticism per se, he was well acquainted with the apparatus critici of various editions, as well as with several MSS first-hand. Most remarkably in this regard, Sharp felt neither allegiance to the King James Bible nor to the Textus Receptus. And although his text-critical views were hardly as sophisticated as those of a Griesbach or Lachmann (he defends, for example, the authenticity of θεός in 1 Tim 3:16 [A Tract on the Law of Nature, 252-53]), Sharp’s treatments give further testimony that although the TR was the only printed text until 1831, this situation was hardly due to consensus of its authority.

⁷²See discussion below.

⁷³Correspondence from Lloyd to Sharp, 15 January 1798, cited in Hoare, Memoirs, 2.374.

⁷⁴Correspondence from Horsley to Sharp, 5 July 1805, cited in ibid., 2.373-4. Horsley’s praise was in reference to some refinements on the use of waw that Sharp had introduced in his Three Tracts on the Syntax and Pronunciation of the Hebrew Tongue, with an Appendix, addressed to the Hebrew Nation (4 vols. in one; London: Vernor and Hood, 1804). Horsley was sufficiently impressed with Sharp’s insights that he began translating Sharp’s comments into Latin in order that they might thereby gain recognition in the rest of Europe. Horsley’s untimely death prevented the completion of the translation (Hoare, Memoirs, 2.367-71).

⁷⁵Hoare, Memoirs, 2.376.

⁷⁶This is the title of the first American edition. There are slight differences in earlier editions. Unless otherwise noted, the edition used in this paper is the latest, the first American edition (a clone of the third British edition), published in Philadelphia by B. B. Hopkins in 1807.

⁷⁷The first twenty-four pages (twenty-six in the 2d edition) of his Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article are, in fact, a duplication of that letter to an unnamed minister friend (dated 10 June 1778). All six rules are laid down, with several examples. Sharp’s usual practice was to make an ἀντίγραφον of his letters. On this occasion, however, Sharp “had not leisure to copy the original letter” and, after repeated attempts to retrieve it over a span of several years, was able to obtain only a part of it (Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, 24).

⁷⁸T. Burgess, Lord Bishop of St. David’s, editor of the first and second editions of Sharp’s work, apparently examined many of Sharp’s unpublished MSS, selecting this one for publication. He saw it apparently for the first time in 1792 (correspondence from Burgess to Sharp, 15 December 1792 [quoted in Hoare, Memoirs, 2.372]). The essay was not originally intended by Sharp for publication (cf. Sharp, Remarks, iv; Hoare, Memoirs, 2.300-301, citing a memorandum by Sharp on this work).

⁷⁹A Tract on the Law of Nature. One might note the cautious stance that Sharp took on his own work. In the scripture index to this tract, there is no mention of Eph 5:5; 1 Tim 5:21; 2 Tim 4:1; Titus 2:13; or 2 Pet 1:1—all passages which Sharp would later argue fit his rule and thus bore testimony to Christ’s deity. A year after it was published, however, Sharp wrote to a friend about his rule on the article (which letter is reproduced at the beginning of his Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article). There he alludes to his having worked on the article-noun-καί-noun construction for some time and that he had, in fact, sent a preliminary draft of his views to “a very learned friend” who found several exceptions to Sharp’s first rule as he had at the time stated it (Remarks 1-2). Although the many time references are not precise (e.g., “I have so long neglected” to write; “I had written,” “I was willing to wait”), it is possible, even likely, that Sharp had worked up a rough sketch of his rule while writing his Tract on the Law of Nature. If so, he most likely would have hesitated to include the rule in the tract because it had not yet been processed through sober reflection by himself or judicious examination by others. Hence, he does not mention the christologically significant texts involving the construction in his Tract on the Law of Nature.

⁸⁰The first and second editions were published in Durham by L. Pennington in 1798 and 1802. The third edition was published in London by Vernor and Hood in 1803. The fourth, known as the first American edition, was merely a reprint of the third with a few typographical and spelling changes; it was published in Philadelphia by B. B. Hopkins in 1807.

⁸¹Blunt’s work was originally published as a 218 page book entitled, Six More Letters to Granville Sharp, Esq., on his Remarks upon the Uses of the Article in the Greek Testament. London: J. Johnston, 1803. Blunt’s real name was apparently Thomas Pearne.

⁸²Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article 2. The rest of the rules were intended “to illustrate the particularity of the several sentences which fall under the first rule … ” (ibid., 7).

⁸³Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article 3 (italics in the original).

⁸⁴Ibid., 5-6.

⁸⁵Ibid., 120. Sharp also notes that the fourth rule embraces impersonal substantives exclusively (ibid., 121).

⁸⁶Ibid., 140-42.

⁸⁷It is not enough to say that both nouns have equal referents (as some have misunderstood Sharp to mean), nor that the single article simply unites them somehow: the point of Sharp’s rule is that both noun A and noun B refer to the same person (thus an identical referent).

⁸⁸Sharp did not specify that it must have complete grammatical concord, e.g., by also having the same gender. Thus whether Sharp would have applied his rule to 1 John 5:20 is not known.

⁸⁹These criteria can also be seen from Sharp’s examples. He produces twenty-five undisputed examples (i.e., those which do not impact the deity of Christ) from the NT. Every one involves singular, non-proper, personal substantives, in grammatical concord with the article.

⁹⁰Ibid., 25-62. He also discussed Phil 3:3 as a pneumatologically significant text, according to the reading of Alexandrinus and other ancient authorities (29-31).

⁹¹Ibid., 3-7. He further recognized that these twenty-five examples were not all the passages that came under the rubric of his rule (“There are several other texts wherein the mode of expression is exactly similar, and which therefore do necessarily require a construction agreeable to the same rule … ” (ibid.). On the other hand, Sharp did not know explicitly of any other texts (cf. his response to one Calvin Winstanley, A Dissertation on the Supreme Divine Dignity of the Messiah: in reply to a Tract, entitled, “A Vindication of certain Passages in the common English Version of the New Testament” [London: B. Edwards, 1806] 4).

⁹²Some of his examples involved readings found in the TR which have little claim to authenticity (e.g., τὸν τύφλον καὶ κώφον in Matt 12:22, Sharp’s lone example from the Gospels).

⁹³Ibid., 6.

⁹⁴For a detailed treatment, see D. B. Wallace, “The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by Καί in the New Testament: Semantics and Significance” (Ph.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1995) 50-80. This dissertation is to be published (under a different title) by Peter Lang. This article is, in fact, essentially an expansion of a part of the dissertation and contraction of another.

⁹⁵C. Winstanley, A Vindication of Certain Passages in the Common English Version of the New Testament. Addressed to Granvile Sharp, Esq. (Cambridge: University Press—Hilliard and Metcalf, 1819). The first edition was published in 1805, still during Sharp’s lifetime (Liverpool: W. Jones).

⁹⁶For a detailed discussion, see Wallace, “The Article with Multiple Substantives,” 56-57, 59-61, 64-66, 122-32, 258-59, 267-71.

⁹⁷Originally published in 1808. The edition (“new edition”) used in this essay was published in 1841, incorporating notes by H. J. Rose (London: J. G. F. & J. Rivington, 1841). The latest edition (1855) is merely a reprint of the 1841 edition.

⁹⁸Note especially C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2d ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959) 94, 94 (n. 1), 109 (n. 3), 113 (n. 2), 114, 115, 116, 117, 122. S. E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992) 103, n. 1, acknowledges that Middleton’s tome is the “most thorough treatment of the Greek article to date …”

⁹⁹ G. B. Winer, A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, trans. and rev. W. F. Moulton, 3d ed., rev. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1882) 162.

¹⁰⁰J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 1: Prolegomena, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908) 84 (italics added).

¹⁰¹Cf., e.g., C. J. Ellicott, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Andover: Draper, 1897) 207; H. Alford, “The Epistle to Titus,” in The Greek Testament with a Critically Revised Text, a Digest of Various Readings, Marginal References to Verbal and Idiomatic Usage, Prolegomena, and a Critical and Exegetical Commentary, rev. E. F. Harrison (Chicago: Moody, 1958) 421; R. M. Pope, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to Timothy and Titus (London: C. H. Kelly. 1901) 157; H. Windisch, “Zur Christologie der Pastoralbriefe,” ZNW 34 [1935] 226; Taylor, The Person of Christ, 132; R. W. Funk, “The Syntax of the Greek Article: Its Importance for Critical Pauline Problems” (Ph.D. dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1953) 68. In passing, it should be noted that Funk’s appeal to Winer-Moulton for ambiguity contradicts his earlier (on the same page) approbation of Blass-Debrunner’s citing of Titus 2:13 as an example of identical referent.

¹⁰²Cf., e.g., N. J. D. White, “The Epistle to Titus” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1897) 195; J. H. Bernard, The Pastoral Epistles in the Cambridge Greek Testament (Cambridge: University Press, 1899) 171; A. Plummer, “The Pastoral Epistles” in The Expositor’s Bible, ed. W. R. Nicoll (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1894) 269; E. F. Scott, The Pastoral Epistles (New York: Harper and Brothers, n.d.) 169-70; N. Brox, Die Pastoralbriefe, in the Regensburger Neues Testament (4th ed.; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1969) 300; M. Dibelius and H. Conzelmann, The Pastoral Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972) 143; C. Spain, The Letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus (Austin, TX: R. B. Sweet, 1970) 183; E. Stock, Plain Talks on the Pastoral Epistles (London: Robert Scott, 1914) 89.

Among grammarians, note W. H. Simcox (The Language of the New Testament [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1890]): “… in Tit. ii. 13, 2 Peter i. 1, we regard θεοῦ and σωτῆρος as indicating two Persons, though only the former word has the article” (50); A. Buttmann (A Grammar of the New Testament Greek [Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1873]), who heavily relies on Winer throughout his grammar, argues that “it is very hazardous in particular cases to draw important inferences, affecting the sense or even of a doctrinal nature, from the single circumstance of the use or the omission of the article; see e.g. Tit. ii. 13; Jude 4; 2 Pet. i. 1 … ” (97); and M. Zerwick (Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples [Rome: Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1963]) states that the rule is only suggestive, “since the unity of article would be sufficiently accounted for by any conjunction, in the writer’s mind, of the notions expressed” (60).

¹⁰³The 1841 edition. The 1855 edition was merely a reprint.

¹⁰⁴“The Greek Article and the Deity of Christ,” The Expositor, 8th series, 21 (1921) 182-88. He concludes his discussion of Winer’s influence by saying that “Winer did not make out a sound case against Sharp’s principle as applied to 2 Peter i. 1 and Titus ii. 13. Sharp stands vindicated after all the dust has settled” (187).

¹⁰⁵A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th ed. (New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1923) 785-89. The title of the first section is “Several Epithets Applied to the Same Person or Thing” (785-86).

¹⁰⁶H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1927) 147 (as well, they give but three examples, two of which are among the exegetical cruces which concern this paper!). Dana-Mantey modify the statement of the rule in several minor points, however.

¹⁰⁷S. E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992) 110. The error is repeated in the second edition (1994).

¹⁰⁸Ibid.

¹⁰⁹For example, K. Wuest (“The Greek Article in New Testament Interpretation,” BSac 118 [1961]) alleges that “Another function of the Greek article is in the construction called Granville Sharp’s rule, where two nouns in the same case are connected by kai, the first noun, articular, the second, anarthrous, the second referring to the same person or thing expressed by the first noun and being further description of it” (29). Here, he assumes that impersonal nouns fit the rule and further argues that “Sharp’s rule makes the words [in Titus 2:13] ‘the hope’ and ‘the appearing’ refer to the same thing, and ‘God’ and ‘Saviour’ to be the same individual” (ibid.). Wuest also thinks that plural nouns fit the rule: “The same rule identifies the ‘pastors and teachers’ of Ephesians 4:11 (AV) as one individual” (ibid.). L. Radermacher (Neutestamentliche Grammatik, 2d ed. [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1925]), though not mentioning Sharp, seems to imply that a single article uniting two substantives joined by καί speaks of an identical referent: “Wenn mehrere Substantiva [sic] in der Aufzählung miteinander verbunden werden, genügt oft der Artikel beim ersten Wort und zwar nicht allein bei gleichem Genus” (115). He lists τὰ ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας (Col 2:22) as evidence. He goes on to say that the same phenomenon occurs in hellenistic Greek, citing ὁ ἥλιος καὶ σελήνη as an example (ibid.). His two examples are both impersonal, one being singular and the other plural. A case could almost be made for the first example expressing identity, but certainly not the second. Similarly, S. G. Green (Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament, rev. ed. [London: Religious Tract Society, 1912]) has both impersonal and plural constructions and speaks of such constructions “as forming one object of thought” (198; 232), a comment which equals Radermacher’s in its ambiguity. W. D. Chamberlain (An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament [New York: Macmillan, 1941]) apparently has a clear understanding as to when the rule applies and when it does not, but he does not clearly articulate this to the reader (55). BDF seem to support the rule in Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 (they enlist the support of Robertson’s essay, “The Greek Article and the Deity of Christ”), but also apply it to proper, impersonal (geographical) names (145; §276.3), citing Acts 19:21 (τὴν Μακεδονίαν καὶ ᾿Αχαί>αν)! They make no comment about the plural. C. F. D. Moule (Idiom Book) has a sober treatment of the rule, seeing its application in the singular and questioning it in the plural (109-110). But he sides with Radermacher by allowing it with impersonal nouns. N. Turner (A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3: Syntax, by N. Turner [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963] and Grammatical Insights into the New Testament [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1965]) seems to vacillate in his discussion, for he apparently allows the rule to stand with the singular nouns (Syntax, 181; Insights, 15-16), but also applies it to the plural at his discretion (Syntax, 181). Thus he speaks of a “unified whole” with reference to Eph 2:20; Luke 22:4, and Acts 15:2, but then declares that this same construction may “indeed indicate that two distinct subjects are involved [italics mine]” (ibid.), citing the common phrase οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ Σαδδουκαῖοι as an illustration. It is doubtful that the construction indicates two antithetical ideas/groups; it is rather better to say that it allows for it. Nevertheless, Turner has not shown an understanding of Sharp’s rule in his discussions. J. H. Greenlee (A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek, 3d ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963]) is very unclear when he applies the rule to impersonal constructions (Eph 3:18) and plurals (John 7:45) (50). C. Vaughan and V. E. Gideon (A Greek Grammar of the New Testament [Nashville: Broadman, 1979]) apply the rule to both impersonal and personal constructions, making no comment about the plurals (83). They do note, however, that there are exceptions with the impersonal constructions (ibid., n. 8). J. A. Brooks and C. L. Winbery (Syntax of New Testament Greek [Washington: University Press of America, 1979]) apply the rule to personal, impersonal, and plural constructions explicitly (70-71). B. W. Blackwelder (Light from the Greek New Testament [Anderson, IN: Warner, 1958]), after quoting Sharp’s rule via Robertson, argues that “there are many illustrations of this rule in the New Testament” (146). He then lists four passages, including one which involves plural nouns (Eph 4:11) and two of the christologically significant—and, hence, debatable—texts (Titus 2:13; 2 Pet 1:1) (ibid.). Finally, and most curiously, D. A. Carson (Exegetical Fallacies [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984]) quotes Sharp’s rule as given in Brooks and Winbery’s Syntax, then argues that “The fallacy is in taking this rule too absolutely … ” (84). He then gives several illustrations of impersonal and plural constructions which do not fit the rule (85). Yet nowhere does Carson evidence a clear understanding of the rule; he is simply dissatisfied with the form of it he cites, justifiably arguing that in such a form the rule only suggests unity, not identity.

¹¹⁰Even a scholar the stature of Ezra Abbot, though interacting explicitly with Sharp and Middleton (“Titus II. 13”), failed on two counts in his understanding of Sharp’s rule: (1) he suggests that τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράζοντας in Matt 21:12 proves Sharp’s rule wrong (“No one can reasonably suppose that the same persons are here described as both selling and buying,” 452), even though plural substantives are involved; and (2) he argues that English syntax is wholly analogous to Greek with reference to Sharp’s rule (451-52). Yet, as we have seen, in his appendix, Sharp rightly takes G. Blunt to task for just such a supposition (Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, 126, 147). We might also note that Longenecker, whose scholarship is unquestionably of the highest caliber, quotes Sharp’s rule in exactly the same form as is found in Dana-Mantey’s grammar (except for changing “farther” to “further” to conform with modern practice). Longenecker remarks that the rule is “usually attributed to Granville Sharp” (The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, 138). Similarly, P. S. Berge only quotes Dana-Mantey’s definition of Sharp’s canon (with credit given) in his dissertation, “‘Our Great God and Savior’: A Study of Soter as a Christological Title in Titus 2:11-14” (Th.D. dissertation, Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, Virginia, 1973) 49. Perhaps most remarkably, in R. W. Funk’s dissertation on the article in Paul (“The Syntax of the Greek Article”), Sharp’s monograph is not only not listed in the bibliography, but Sharp’s rule is nowhere mentioned by name.

¹¹¹I am reminded here of C. S. Lewis’ delightful essay, “On the Reading of Old Books,” in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970) 200-207, in which he quips, “if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium” (200). Much of what he has to say in this essay, it seems, is applicable to our present concern.

¹¹²In Pauline Studies: Essays presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on his 70th Birthday, ed. D. A. Hagner and M. J. Harris (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 267. This particular argument is given more space than any other in Harris’ article (267-69).

¹¹³The passages he cites are Acts 15:2 (τοὺς ἀποστόλους καὶ πρεσβυτέρους); 16:4 (τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ πρεσβυτέρων); and 2 Cor 1:3 (ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ). Harris himself admits that elsewhere in Acts “the repeated article in the phrase οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ πρεσβύτεροι (Acts 15:4, 6, 22) shows that the apostles of the Jerusalem church were a group distinct from the elders” (ibid.). He sees the single article constructions of Acts 15:2 and 16:4 as indicating “a single administrative unit … ” But if true, even this does not conform to his statement of the rule, for though elder + apostle might = a unit, that is much different from saying that elder = apostle, which is the very point of Sharp’s rule, even as Harris has expressed it. Elsewhere in his essay Harris indicates that he views impersonal nouns also to fall within the purview of the rule: “If the parallelism is intentional, ὁ μέγας θεός is the σωτήρ, just as ἡ μακαρία ἐλπίς is the ἐπιφάνεια” (270).

¹¹⁴This can be illustrated by reference to two passages: Eph 4:11 and Titus 2:13. In Eph 4:11 the plural construction is used (τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους) while in Titus 2:13 there are two constructions, one impersonal (τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν) and one which Sharp believed fit his rule (τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν). As we have mentioned earlier, Sharp restricted the rule to personal singular nouns. Yet the plural construction in Eph 4:11 and the impersonal construction in Titus 2:13 are usually, or at least frequently, seen as fitting the rule, though with no proof that the rule could be expanded to include either construction.

With reference to Eph 4:11, most commentators are agreed that one group is in view in this construction (but cf. G. H. P. Thompson, The Letters of Paul to the Ephesians, to the Colossians and to Philemon [CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969] 69; and C. J. Ellicott, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians [Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1885] 94. Thompson simply asserts that “teachers were holders of another office” without giving any evidence. Ellicott argues solely from scanty lexical evidence.) Yet those who affirm that one group is identified by the phrase have little syntactical evidence on their side as well. H. Alford (The Epistle to the Ephesians) argues that “from these latter not being distinguished from the pastors by the τοὺς δέ, it would seem that the offices were held by the same persons” (117). But he gives no cross-references nor does he demonstrate that this is the normal usage of the plural construction. B. F. Westcott (Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians [New York: Macmillan, 1906]) argues for one class “not from a necessary combination of the two functions but from their connexion with a congregation” (62). C. Hodge (A Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians [New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1856]) boldly states that “The absence of the article before διδασκάλους proves that the apostle intended to designate the same persons as at once pastors and teachers [italics added]” (226). But then he curiously backs off from such grammatical dogma by adding that “It is true the article is at times omitted between two substantives referring to different classes … ” (227), citing Mark 15:1 as evidence. Finally, he reverts to his initial certitude by concluding, “But in such an enumeration as that contained in this verse … the laws of language require τοὺς δὲ διδασκάλους, had the apostle intended to distinguish the διδάσκαλοι from the ποιμένες [italics added]” (ibid.). No evidence is given to support this contention. It is significant, in fact, that of the commentaries surveyed, only Hodge mentioned any other text in which the plural construction occurred—a text which would not support his conclusions! Eadie, Abbott, Salmond, Lenski, Hendriksen, Erdman, Kent, Barclay, Wuest, and Barth (to name but a few) also see the two terms referring to one group, though their arguments are either not based on syntax or make unwarranted and faulty assumptions about the syntax. Some would insist that the article-noun-καί-noun plural construction requires that the second group is to be identified with the first. Wuest articulates this assumption most clearly: “The words ‘pastors’ and ‘teachers’ are in a construction called Granvill [sic] Sharp’s rule which indicates that they refer to one individual” (K. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: Ephesians and Colossians [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953] 101).

With reference to Titus 2:13, several scholars see the rule applying to “the blessed hope and appearing,” an impersonal construction. E.g., R. St. John Parry (The Pastoral Epistles [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1920]) argues that τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν means “that manifestation which is our hope” (81). Some scholars explicitly invoke Sharp’s name when they discuss “the blessed hope and appearing” (e.g., E. K. Simpson, The Pastoral Epistles [London: Tyndale, 1954] 108); others do so implicitly (e.g., W. Hendriksen, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles in New Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1957] 372-73; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to Titus [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961] 922-23; F. F. Bruce, “‘Our God and Saviour’: A Recurring Biblical Pattern” [in The Saviour God: Comparative Studies in the Concept of Salvation Presented to Edwin Oliver James, ed. by S. G. F. Brandon; New York: Barnes & Noble, 1963] 51-52; R. O. Yeager, “Titus 1:1-3:15” in The Renaissance New Testament [Gretna: Pelican, 1985] 35-36).

Some scholars regard (without further comment on the syntactical principle they are invoking), that the single article with “God and Savior” is sufficient evidence that only one person is in view. Note, e.g., P. Schepens, “De demonstratione divinitatis Christi ex epistula ad Titum II. 13,” Greg 7 (1926) 243; F. Ogara, “Apparuit gratia Dei Salvatoris nostri,” VD 15 (1935) 365- 66; C. Spicq, Les Epitres Pastorales (Paris: Lecoffre, 1947) 264-65; P. Dornier, Les Epitres Pastorales (Paris: Lecoffre, 1969) 144; R. Schnackenburg in R. Schnackenburg and P. Smulders, La christologie dans le Nouveau Testament et le dogme (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1974) 190. Finally, we should mention R. H. Countess (The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament: A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures [Philipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982]) who, after quoting Sharp’s canon via Dana-Mantey, cautions that “Granville Sharp’s dogmatic ‘always’ certainly invites a search for exceptions and Matthew 17:1 may be one” (69). But this lone “exception” which Countess gives involves proper names (τὸν Πέτρον καὶ ∆Ιάκωβον καὶ ∆Ιωάννην)!

These few examples of scholars’ misunderstanding of Sharp’s principle could be reproduced manifold. These are given to show that it is hardly an exaggeration to say that almost without exception, those who seem to be acquainted with Sharp’s rule and agree with its validity, misunderstand it and abuse it.

¹¹⁵In passing, three other studies should be mentioned. R. D. Durham, “Granville Sharp’s Rule” (unpublished doctoral paper, Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, Indiana, 1972), acknowledges that Sharp’s canon did not cover plural nouns or proper names, but he thinks that Sharp meant to include impersonal nouns as meeting the requirements (7). M. L. Johnson, “A Reconsideration of the Role of Sharp’s Rule in Interpreting the Greek New Testament” (M.A. thesis, University of Mississippi, 1986), assumes that Sharp’s rule only dealt with conceptual unity, even going so far as to say that Sharp’s “principle gained general acceptance by both Classical and New Testament grammarians” (54). He lists among the article-noun-καί-noun constructions which fit Sharp’s canon plurals, impersonals, and abstracts (70-71, 73). G. W. Rider, “An Investigation of the Granville Sharp Phenomenon and Plurals” (Th.M. thesis, Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, Indiana, 1980), sides with Durham in treating plurals and proper nouns as exceptions, but impersonal nouns as fitting the rule (23-25). It may be fairly said that in each of these studies there was a confusion between unity of referents and identity of referents.

¹¹⁶For a comprehensive treatment of the semantics of both Sharp’s rule and the article-noun-καί-noun construction in the NT, see Wallace, “The Article with Multiple Substantives.”

¹¹⁷“The Greek Article,” 187.

¹¹⁸J. C. D. Clark, The Language of Liberty 1660-1832 (Cambridge: CUP, 1994) 37.

¹¹⁹The letter is quoted in Colin Bonwick, English Radicals and the American Revolution (Chapel Hill, 1977) 7.