This is a response to the Bible commentaries found on Bible Hub, evaluated in light of the scholarly evidence supporting the proper grammatical reading of this verse.
Ellicott’s commentary
Ellicott’s commentary on 2 Peter 1:1 presents a hesitant position on whether the verse identifies Jesus Christ as both God and Savior. While he rightly notes that strict grammatical analysis leans toward referring to one person namely, Jesus Christ he dismisses this conclusion by suggesting that grammar alone is not always a reliable guide in interpreting Scripture. He then appeals to the following verse (2 Peter 1:2) to argue that both the Father and the Son are likely being referenced. However, this reasoning is insufficient when weighed against the robust grammatical, contextual, and theological analysis provided by scholars such as Gene L. Green, Daniel B. Wallace, Jacob Chengwei Feng, and Richard Bauckham.
These scholars consistently affirm that the structure of 2 Peter 1:1 falls squarely within the framework of the Granville Sharp rule, which states that when two singular personal nouns are connected by “and” (καὶ) and governed by one article, they refer to the same person. Green points out that the same grammatical construction appears in several places within the epistle (1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18) and consistently refers to Jesus Christ alone. Wallace reinforces this by demonstrating that even when possessive pronouns like “our” (ἡμῶν) are inserted between the two nouns, they do not break the rule, as evidenced by parallel constructions in non-biblical Greek sources and other New Testament passages. Bauckham adds that when the author of 2 Peter wants to distinguish between the Father and the Son, he does so using an entirely different grammatical construction, as in verse 2 (“τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν”), where two distinct persons are clearly indicated.
Ellicott’s appeal to theological ambiguity and reluctance to rely on grammar appears more like an evasion than a careful exegetical judgment. His commentary does not address the internal consistency of the epistle, the uniformity of Greek syntax, or the patristic witness to the use of “God and Savior” as a title for Christ. In contrast, the scholarly consensus is firmly grounded in grammatical precision and supported by contextual coherence and historical usage. Therefore, Ellicott’s alternative interpretation ultimately fails to provide a compelling case against the view that 2 Peter 1:1 is a direct affirmation of the deity of Jesus Christ.
Benson’s commentary
Benson’s commentary on 2 Peter 1:1–2, though aiming to uphold an orthodox view of salvation and the roles of the Father and the Son, fails to properly reflect the force of the Greek grammar, particularly as it relates to Christology. He initially follows the common translation that identifies Jesus Christ as both “God and Savior,” but then pivots to raise doubts based on the objection from Macknight, who questions the translators’ rendering of τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ as “our God and Savior.” Benson does note that this is “undoubtedly” the literal translation and that it presents Jesus Christ as the one in whom faith is placed and through whom it is received. However, he leaves the door open for a two-person interpretation by suggesting that “our” might be understood as applying separately to both “God” and “Savior.” This, he acknowledges, is grammatically questionable but still worthy of mention.
The problem with this hesitation is that it ignores the decisive grammatical and contextual evidence supplied by scholars such as Wallace, Green, and Bauckham. Wallace in particular provides an extensive grammatical analysis demonstrating that the insertion of a possessive pronoun like “our” between the article and the two substantives (God and Savior) does not disrupt the Granville Sharp rule. In fact, numerous examples from both biblical and non-biblical Greek support the unity of referent even when modifiers are present. Green reinforces this by pointing out that the same exact grammatical construction occurs repeatedly in 2 Peter (1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18), always referring to a single person Jesus Christ. Bauckham adds that when the author of 2 Peter intends to distinguish the Father from the Son, he uses a clearly different construction, such as in verse 2, which mentions τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, thus removing any real ambiguity.
Benson’s commentary ultimately concedes the correct grammar but clouds it with uncertainty due to theological caution or dependence on outdated objections like Macknight’s. Rather than affirming what the Greek text plainly states that Jesus Christ is both “our God and Savior” it introduces an unnecessary ambiguity. By contrast, the modern scholarly consensus sees no legitimate reason to deviate from the clear grammatical force of the passage, making Benson’s hesitation both linguistically and contextually unwarranted.
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Barnes or a similar conservative commentator, expresses a cautious stance on the Christological reading of 2 Peter 1:1. It acknowledges that the Greek allows the rendering “our God and Savior, Jesus Christ” and concedes that many reputable scholars Middleton, Slade, Valpy, and Bloomfield support this interpretation. However, the commentator tempers this acknowledgment by appealing to older dissenting voices such as Wetstein, Grotius, and Erasmus, and concludes that the passage should not be treated as a decisive proof-text for the divinity of Christ due to some lingering grammatical doubt.
This cautious position, however, fails to withstand scrutiny when held against the weight of more current and comprehensive grammatical scholarship. Daniel B. Wallace has extensively demonstrated that 2 Peter 1:1 fits the Granville Sharp rule, which holds that when two singular, personal, non-proper nouns are connected by “and” (καί) and governed by a single article, they refer to the same person. Wallace points out that the inclusion of a genitive modifier like “our” (ἡμῶν) does not break this rule, citing both New Testament parallels and examples from the Greek papyri to reinforce that this construction consistently refers to a single individual. Furthermore, the same epistle uses identical constructions multiple times such as in 2 Peter 1:11, 2:20, and 3:18 to describe Jesus alone as “Lord and Savior,” reinforcing the interpretation of 1:1 as likewise referring to Jesus alone.
Gene Green and Richard Bauckham also dismantle the hesitation reflected in this commentary by showing that the author of 2 Peter is perfectly capable of distinguishing between God the Father and Jesus Christ when he chooses to, as in verse 2 where a separate grammatical construction is used. Bauckham even stresses that early second-century Christian texts freely applied the title “God” to Jesus, further validating the reading of 2 Peter 1:1 as a reference to Jesus’ divinity without requiring a late date for the letter or theological innovation.
The ultimate flaw in this commentator’s reasoning is the over-reliance on earlier scholarly doubt without engaging with the stronger and clearer grammatical and contextual case made by modern experts. While it is true that doctrines should not be based on obscure or uncertain texts, 2 Peter 1:1 is neither obscure nor ambiguous when evaluated with sound Greek grammar and internal consistency. Therefore, this commentary’s appeal to doubt is unnecessary and misleading, especially given that the text clearly calls Jesus Christ both “God” and “Savior.”
Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Meyer’s New Testament Commentary offers a meticulous linguistic and theological analysis of 2 Peter 1:1, ultimately rejecting the Christological interpretation that identifies Jesus as both “God and Savior.” While Meyer acknowledges that some interpreters (like Beza, Gerhard, Schott, and Hofmann) affirm the Granville Sharp construction and see this phrase as applying to one person Jesus Christ he aligns instead with commentators like Wiesinger, Brückner, and Steinfass, who split the phrase and apply “our God” to the Father and “Savior” to Jesus. The reason Meyer gives is that, unlike κύριος (Lord), the noun θεός (God) is allegedly never directly joined with Χριστός (Christ) as a title. He further contends that the article before θεοῦ governs both θεοῦ and σωτῆρος, but he nonetheless interprets them as referring to two distinct persons. In this view, the grammar allows for the Granville Sharp reading but does not necessitate it.
However, Meyer’s position is significantly weakened when placed alongside the comprehensive grammatical and contextual arguments made by more recent scholars such as Daniel B. Wallace, Gene L. Green, Jacob Chengwei Feng, and Richard Bauckham. Wallace demonstrates that the construction in 2 Peter 1:1 the definite article followed by two singular, non-proper, personal substantives connected by καί does require the referents to be one and the same person under the Granville Sharp rule. He further refutes the claim that the possessive pronoun “our” (ἡμῶν) between the nouns breaks the grammatical unity, citing numerous New Testament and papyri examples where possessive pronouns do not disrupt the singular reference. Wallace even addresses historical claims similar to Meyer’s by appealing to the usage patterns of the early Church Fathers, who consistently understood phrases like “God and Savior” as applying to Christ alone.
Bauckham, similarly, dismantles Meyer’s distinction between θεός and κύριος by showing that the epistle clearly uses structurally identical constructions (1:11; 2:20; 3:18) to refer to Jesus alone as “Lord and Savior.” He also notes that when the author of 2 Peter intends to refer to two distinct persons the Father and the Son he uses a different construction altogether (as in 1:2), which is not governed by one article. Green reinforces this internal consistency by highlighting how the grammatical pattern across the epistle supports a singular reference to Jesus in 1:1. Additionally, Feng shows that the early Christian understanding of Jesus as both God and Savior is already embedded in the text and not a later theological overlay.
Meyer’s conclusion, while thorough in form, ultimately prioritizes a theological presupposition over the clear grammatical evidence. His argument that θεός is never directly attributed to Christ as a title is simply not supported by the textual data not only in 2 Peter 1:1 but in similar constructions throughout the New Testament. Moreover, his preference for a two-person interpretation seems driven more by caution than by exegetical necessity. In contrast, the Granville Sharp construction is grammatically firm, contextually coherent, and theologically harmonious with both the surrounding epistle and the broader New Testament witness. Thus, Meyer’s commentary, though detailed, falls short in adequately grappling with the strength of the grammatical and contextual evidence affirming that 2 Peter 1:1 presents Jesus Christ as both “our God and Savior.”
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges commentary
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges commentary on 2 Peter 1:1–2 affirms the grammatical possibility that the phrase “of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” could be read as a reference to one person, Jesus Christ. However, the author ultimately retreats from this interpretation by appealing to broader patterns of apostolic usage. Arguing from analogy with greetings in other Pauline and Petrine epistles (e.g., 1 Corinthians 1:3; Galatians 1:3), the commentary leans toward the view that “God” should refer to the Father, and “Saviour” to Jesus Christ. The rationale offered is that it would be more “consonant” with how the apostles typically speak of the Father and the Son, even though the grammar itself favors a single referent.
This cautious position fails to engage deeply with the exegetical and grammatical insights provided by more rigorous scholarship. Daniel B. Wallace’s detailed analysis of the Granville Sharp rule especially as it applies to constructions involving singular, personal, non-proper nouns joined by a single article and the conjunction καί (“and”) decisively affirms that 2 Peter 1:1 refers to one person: Jesus Christ. Wallace rebuts the exact type of reasoning used by the Cambridge commentator by showing that possessive pronouns like “our” (ἡμῶν) do not break the grammatical force of the construction. Additionally, he demonstrates that multiple New Testament texts and non-literary papyri confirm the consistent usage of this structure to designate a single individual.
Moreover, the argument that “apostolic usus loquendi” must guide interpretation is misleading. The very epistle in question includes other verses with identical grammatical constructions namely, 2 Peter 1:11; 2:20; and 3:18 all of which clearly refer to Jesus Christ as a single figure with the dual title “Lord and Savior.” Richard Bauckham notes this pattern as well, emphasizing that when the author wants to refer distinctly to the Father and the Son as in 2 Peter 1:2 he uses a completely different construction that separates the nouns and includes the article only once before the first noun. This internal consistency within the epistle strengthens the case for reading 1:1 as a singular reference to Christ. Additionally, Gene Green affirms that this construction, and the recurrence of the same phrase in the epistle, amounts to one of the clearest affirmations of the early Church’s conviction of Jesus’ full deity.
The Cambridge commentary also attempts to ground its interpretation in theology by invoking the concept of God’s impartial righteousness, claiming that it is more fitting to see righteousness as a divine attribute that sets the stage for Jew and Gentile equality. While this theological point is valid in its own right, it does not address the specific grammatical structure in question, nor does it challenge the viability of the Christological reading in any substantive way. In short, the commentary prioritizes patterns of epistolary habit over actual syntax and neglects the broader evidence—both internal and external—that clearly supports the identification of Jesus Christ as both “God and Savior” in this passage.
Thus, while the Cambridge commentary acknowledges the grammatical legitimacy of the high Christology interpretation, it ultimately defaults to a more theologically conservative and less textually grounded position. In contrast, the arguments offered by Wallace, Green, Bauckham, and Feng remain textually driven, grammatically precise, and theologically consistent, making the case for the deity of Christ in 2 Peter 1:1 both stronger and more faithful to the actual Greek of the epistle.
The Pulpit Commentary
The Pulpit Commentary on 2 Peter 1:1 takes a generally fair and linguistically responsible approach, but ultimately adopts a position of qualified ambiguity regarding whether the phrase “our God and Saviour Jesus Christ” should be understood as a reference to one person (Jesus Christ) or to two persons (God the Father and Jesus Christ separately). The commentator affirms that, grammatically, the construction is most naturally taken as applying both “God” and “Saviour” to Jesus Christ, as is also the case in Titus 2:13. The commentary acknowledges that the lack of a second article before “Saviour” strongly supports the Granville Sharp construction, where two singular personal nouns joined by “and” and governed by a single article refer to one and the same person. Still, it holds open the possibility of a two-person interpretation due to the distinction made between the Father and the Son in the following verse (v. 2), which has led some commentators to see that same distinction in verse 1.
This interpretive hesitation, while cautious, falls short when evaluated alongside the thorough grammatical and contextual case established by scholars like Daniel Wallace, Gene Green, and Richard Bauckham. Wallace, in particular, directly addresses the concern raised in the Pulpit Commentary—that the lack of a second article doesn’t necessarily demand a one-person referent. However, Wallace’s research demonstrates that when all the required conditions of the Granville Sharp rule are met (as they are here: singular, personal, non-proper nouns, joined by “and,” and governed by a single article), the construction always refers to a single person. This is not merely a grammatical probability but a rule supported by extensive data across the Greek New Testament and extrabiblical sources.
Furthermore, the appeal to the next verse (v. 2) as evidence for a two-person distinction in verse 1 ignores how the author of 2 Peter consistently uses different grammatical constructions when referring to two persons, as in “of God and of Jesus our Lord” (τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν). Gene Green and Bauckham both point out that when the author does want to distinguish between the Father and the Son, he does so clearly and explicitly through distinct grammar. In contrast, verse 1 is written with a singular grammatical structure consistently used throughout the letter (see 1:11; 2:20; 3:18) to refer to Jesus Christ alone with compound titles like “Lord and Savior.”
The Pulpit Commentary also attempts to weigh theological concerns about “righteousness” and the apostolic pattern of greeting formulas. Yet these theological speculations do not override the precision of the Greek syntax. Wallace even directly engages with the same alternative proposals that Pulpit entertains such as differing theological distributions of titles and demonstrates that those objections fail to account for the actual linguistic patterns found in Greek.
In conclusion, while the Pulpit Commentary makes a fair effort to acknowledge the grammatical evidence and notes that the text strongly leans toward a Christological reading, its unwillingness to affirm that conclusion unequivocally rests on speculative theological concerns and an overextension of contextual inference. In contrast, the grammar of 2 Peter 1:1, the usage throughout the epistle, and the broader patterns of Greek usage in the New Testament all clearly indicate that the verse identifies Jesus Christ as both our God and our Savior, making this passage a direct and powerful affirmation of the deity of Christ.
Conclusion
Several commentators who hesitate to affirm the deity of Christ in 2 Peter 1:1 display inconsistency when applying the same grammatical principles to other passages with nearly identical structures. For instance, many of these same commentaries such as Ellicott’s, Benson’s, and the Cambridge Bible readily accept that “Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” in 2 Peter 1:11, 2:20, and 3:18 refers to a single person, Jesus. These verses follow the same construction as 1:1: a single article governing two singular, personal, non-proper nouns (Lord and Savior) joined by kai, followed by the name Jesus Christ. Yet, when the titles are “God and Savior” instead of “Lord and Savior,” as in 2 Peter 1:1, these commentators suddenly express doubt or appeal to the following verse (1:2) to justify a two-person reading. This is despite acknowledging, as several of them do, that the Greek allows for the phrase to refer to one person Jesus Christ. Meyer, for example, admits that the structure in 1:11 and 3:18 clearly applies to one person, but insists that “Theos” is never joined directly with “Christos” as a predicate, even though the grammar demands it here. Likewise, the Pulpit Commentary and Cambridge Bible both concede that the Greek grammar of 2 Peter 1:1 leans toward a single referent but retreat from this conclusion based on theological preference or customary apostolic language. In contrast, scholars like Wallace, Green, and Bauckham point out that when the author of 2 Peter wants to refer to two distinct persons such as in 1:2 he uses a completely different grammatical construction with separate articles. Their consistent application of Greek grammar across all such verses underscores that 2 Peter 1:1, like 1:11, 2:20, and 3:18, unambiguously refers to Jesus Christ alone who is called both God and Savior. The inconsistency among opposing commentators thus lies in affirming the unity of referent when the titles are less theologically weighty (e.g., “Lord and Savior”), but resisting it when the title “God” is involved revealing a selective, rather than grammatical, hesitation.
Back to “Jesus as God: The Pillar Passages of High Christology“