Re: Another Carson Question--Sort Of

From: Dale M. Wheeler (
Date: Sat Apr 11 1998 - 19:54:02 EDT

Edgar Foster wrote:

>Dear Steven,
>I cannot provide Stafford's book as I have not received my copy yet.
>It is my observation, however, that there ARE in fact exceptions to
>the GS Rule. Now, I know that James White and even Dale Wheeler (no
>offense Dale) feel that the GS Rule is just that! But, it seems to me
>that there are examples of the GS Rule not being applicable in
>Scripture. Let me cite a few references here. Maybe someone can show
>me where I'm wrong here.

Boy Edgar, you must think I'm pretty thin-skinned... (-;

All I can tell you is why I don't think the following passages are
examples of G-S constuctions; you'll have to decide for yourself.

>Eph. 5:5

XRISTOU by this point in time has become a proper name in NT usage,
ie., Jesus' last name (some no doubt will not agree, but that's the
way I see it).

>2 Thess. 1:12

The sense that I get from reading the NT is that the phrase KURIOS
IHSOUS XRISTOS has become a frozen form proper name for Jesus by
this point (the same cannot be said about SWTHR used in Titus 2:13,
2 Pet 1:1 since the "name" SWTHR IHSOUS XRISTOS doesn't really occur;
its either got a hHMWN in it or is used in conjunction with KURIOS;
moreover, apart from 2Pet it doesn't occur, and thus its clear that
it hasn't achieved some mutually agreed upon status as a "name".)...

>2 Tim. 4:1

IHSOUS XRISTOS or XRISTOS IHSOUS to me are proper names.

>Tit. 1:4


>As for 2 Pet. 1:1, it is debatable whether or not the GS rule applies
>there. In view of the context, I would not equate Christ with QHEOS.
>This may also be a case of the quasi-personal names that Stafford
>speaks of.

You are certainly entitled to your view. I've not see Stafford's
work, but up till now the standard objection to the G-S in 2Pet 1:1;
Tit 2:13 has been that QEOS is a proper name, with which I would
personally disagree. I'm really not sure what a "quasi-personal
name" would be ? But unless Stafford is referring to QEOS in both
of these passages, the point, as far as I can tell, would be irrelevant,
since IHSOU XRISTOU in both passages is not part of the G-S construction;
Jesus' name is in apposition to the QEOS and SWTHR. I still think the
G-S rule applies in these two passages....does this make me a hopelessy
brain-dead dogmatic fundamentalist ? I certainly hope not; I'm
making this judgment on the basis of grammar alone...I really don't care
if the G-S construction is proven wrong here and everywhere. We
should just let the data speak. Besides, if these are the only verses
we've got to hang Jesus' deity on, then the argument for his deity
is pretty weak...BTW, I refuse to get into the theological argument
about Jesus' deity...wrong list for that !! (-;

>One more question: if the absence of the article vis-a'-vis the second
>substantive means that Jesus is BOTH God and Savior in Tit. 2:13, is
>the converse also true?

I don't follow the question.

I.e., in John 20:28 an article precedes both
>KURIOS and QEOS. Therefore we have an article-noun-kai-article-noun
>construction. Any significance here?

If you mean that because there is an article in front of both that the
nouns must thereby refer to two different people...I'd say not. Aside
from the obvious contextual meaning, it has been my observation that
the inclusion of both articles does not necessarily indicate that the
the two nouns are different persons/things; they may be, but not
necessarily. In the case of John 20:28 the MOU virtually demands an
article with the noun it goes with...and since there are two MOUs, there
are two articles.


Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.
Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:23 EDT