Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours
2 Peter 1:1
This text is sometimes appealed to as being an argument for the deity of Christ, calling him “our God and saviour.” The text is somewhat ambiguous, some translations read as if these titles apply to two persons (KJV: “of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” ASV: “our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ.”). Others compound them as if they are referring to one person. The problem is complicated because simply the way in which the text is read and punctuation can change and influence whether we are seeming to imply one person or two. Are we speaking of “God” and “saviour Jesus” or are we speaking of “our God and Saviour Jesus?” The Granville Sharp construction is often appealed to to be the deciding factor in this text to assert that it should be read as if it refers to only one person and not two. Many are mislead and confused by this. Given that this is said to be “a grammatical rule, people assume that there must only be one way in which to read the passage, as language must follow the rules of grammar. To call this a grammatical “rule” is more than generous. It is blatantly dishonest. Scholars are torn on the issue.
The context of the debates on this passage usually end up centered on discussions of whether or not Sharp’s rule is legitimate or not. However, this shouldn’t be the only argument made in this passage. Below, I will give a few arguments for the proper understanding of this passage to show that it does not prove that Jesus is God.
Textual/external evidence
A little known fact about this verse is the textual variant in which the text reads: “our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ.” Most appeal to Bruce Metzger’s textual commentary (TCGNT) which does not mention this variant at all, so they are not aware. However, our textual studies should exceed this.
Our oldest Greek manuscripts which contain this text are P72, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus. These are all 4th century manuscripts (some have argued P72 is 3rd century, but I have some reservations about this early dating). P72 and Codex B read “God” while Sinaiticus reads “Lord.” At the very least, this evidence alone tells us one of two things: either Codex Sinaiticus contains a scribal error in adding “Lord” (in the nomina sacra form) or that there were two variant readings present at the time of our earliest manuscripts.
P72 contains scribal emendations which present Jesus as God (here). Given this proclivity, it can be reasoned that this variant reading may have been favoured by this community, or, this could be evidence of its corruption in the variant reading, “God,” in this manuscript. Further, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus have very similar style to P72 and are textually related. If so, this would explain the reading of this variant being found in Codex B. These are not two independent witnesses, but rather one collected witness, while Codex Sinaiticus remains a second witness.
To further argue that Codex Sinaiticus is not a corruption, but rather reflects a variant in earlier texts, we also find the reading of “Lord” in vulgate, coptic, and syriac texts, as well as Codex Athous Lavrensis, a late Byzantine manuscript (dated 8th or 9th century). Finding this variant in other languages in early, 4th-5th century manuscripts gives plausibility to the notion that this reading was not simply added by Codex Sinaiticus, but found earlier, vying for its authenticity. In other words, this is not a textual error only found in one early manuscript, but a reading found in different manuscripts in different languages, reflecting that it is either the original reading, or a very early textual variant. Given that either cannot be proven, we cannot say for certainty which reading is original. Therefore this passage should be used as “proof” that Jesus is called “God,” when according to the manuscripts, he may have been called “Lord” in this passage instead.
Side note: very few church fathers even quote this verse prior to the manuscripts (not even when arguing against the dynamic monarchians or Arians), so it is hard to even deduce what variant they were familiar with.
Contextual/internal evidence
Looking at context would include the immediate context in the surrounding verses, the letter itself, and the style of Peter from both of his surviving letters. When we compare these facts, we do not see any evidence that Peter declares Jesus is “God.” The very next verse (2 Peter 1:2) says: “Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.” A clear distinction is made between Jesus and God. Should we really assume that Peter (or his scribe) would be so sloppy in their language that they would collapse Jesus and God together, and in the very next breath speak of them as distinct? Even in the writings of Trinitarian church fathers, they argue that Jesus is not called “God” when in context with the Father, so as to mark a clear distinction between the two.
In verse 8, Peter again identifies Jesus strictly as “the Lord of us,” and in verse 11 we read: “our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.” Everywhere in this letter, we find Jesus referred to as both Lord, and saviour, in various ways. Never “God.” It is highly unlikely that Peter would do so in the beginning of his letter. Further, the typical opening greetings of apostolic NT letters is to address God the Father, and our Lord Jesus (see 1 Cor. 1:3, 2 Cor. 1:2, Gal. 1:3, Eph. 1:2, Php. 1:2, Col. 1:2-3, 1 Thes. 1:1, 2 Thes. 1:2, 1 Tim. 1:2, 2 Tim. 1:2, Titus 1:4, Philemon 3, James 1:1, 1 John 1:3, 2 John 1:2, Jude 1-2). Note how Peter introduces his first letter:
1 Peter 1:3a: “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!”
If our consistent patterns are:
1. NT letters and epistles customarily begin with greeting from God and Jesus, with God always referring to the Father specifically (or only).
2. Peter himself uses the standard greeting of “God the Father” and “Jesus” in his first letter.
3. In the immediate context of 2 Peter 1:2, Jesus and God are distinct from each other, God being the Father.
4. Peter consistently uses the title “Lord” for Jesus and never “God” in his letters.
With these facts in mind, it should be clear that either “God” was intended to refer to the Father, as always, or that the original reading was “Lord,” being perfectly consistent with the style of Peter. Either way, it is obvious that referring to Jesus as “God” is very strange and unusual for Peter, and very inconsistent.
Grammatical Response
The argument is sometimes given for the Granville Sharp construction to be proof of this being a reference to Jesus being God. I cover this briefly (here) with some links to other discussions, books, and papers on the subject if you want a more detailed discussion. While I am skeptical of the Sharp’s rule being anything of a rule at all, even granting for the sake of argument that it’s true, this passage still does not prove that Jesus is God. According to Sharp’s rule, both nouns must apply to one person. However when we look at what’s being applied to Jesus, this is what we find:
“To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith…”
If the argument is that we should apply both “the righteousness of our God” and “Saviour” to Jesus, this is not to identify Jesus as God. This is to identify Jesus as “the righteousness of God.” When we speak of the power of God, or the grace of God, we are not speaking of “someone identified as God.” Jesus most certainly is the righteousness of God. God performs his right actions through Jesus. If the title “righteousness of our God and saviour” are predicated of Jesus, this does not mean that he is God, but rather that he is the righteousness of our God. Just as Jesus is the wisdom of God. Or the glory of our God (Titus 2:13, the same is true).
Conclusion
Trinitarians base their reading of this text on the assumption that “God” is being predicated of Jesus, even though he never is in context, the letter, or Peter’s other writings (or even in the NT as a whole) with an appeal to an unsubstantiated grammatical idiom which is highly debated and generally disregarded. However, evidence shows that Jesus is called “Lord” in some manuscripts of this passage, both early and diverse, that Jesus is distinguished from God in the immediate context, that Jesus is most often referred to as “Lord,” and at best, this passage only calls Jesus the “righteousness of God,” not that he is our God. This argument should never be leveled in defense of arguments for the deity of Christ, if we are being honest with ourselves and the facts. Many Trinitarian scholars do not use it based on these issues. Even the early church fathers did not use this as an argument to prove that Jesus is God.