Last updated 9/10/15

Some understand 2 Peter 1:1 to say that Jesus is our God and savior. This is understandable as some of the
translations write it this way, however some write it that Jesus is an additional being to God and others write it in a
neutral way where it could be understood either way. There is another valid way of interpreting the passage where it
is the righteousness that is the emphasis of the passage, Jesus is the righteousness, is the righteousness of God.
On the face of it this might seem like a valid argument that this passage says Jesus is God, however I will show that
this interpretation is an incorrect conclusion and that 2 Peter 1:1 does NOT show Jesus to be God.
Your question to ask will be, is the final conclusion supported and proven by the rest of the study?
Whether you agree or disagree, in part or in whole, big or small, please email me any feedback to help improve this
study. I would also appreciate any help with its logic, grammar, typos, editing etc.
Before analyzing the passage in question in 2 Peter 1:1, and the relationship of Christ with God, I am going to
provide some evidence that has to be taken into account when interpreting our passage.
Part 1 Who is the Savior?
Part 2 What Else Did Peter Say?
Part 3 Forty Three Different Translations
Part 4 The Exact Greek Text Order
Part 5 NT Greek Text Parallels
Part 6 Granville Sharps Rules
Part 7 Do two Nouns Linked by "and" and preceded by a single article make them a single entity?
Part 8 What if God and Christ are linked by "and," and both proceeded by a definite article?
Part 9 Additional Thoughts
Part 10 All Summaries and Conclusion.

1/ Who Is The Savior

It is important to be in agreement regarding who our savior is. This is a part of the summary and conclusion of a fifty
five scripture, thirteen page, analysis of "savior" in the OT and NT.
Part 1 OT: Various people were saviors or could have been saviors
Part 2 Numerous judges, Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Gideon, Tola, a man from Benjamin, King David, Assyrians,
and Noah were all H3467/Yasha/Saviors who were raised up, or sent by the LORD God to be saviors.
Part 3 There is no God but the LORD, there is no savior but the LORD God.
Despite the fact that God has said he is the only savior, we have already seen that he sent numerous other
people to be saviors on his behalf in the OT. God is the savior and he saves through, and by using, people
such as Jeroboam in 2 Kings 14, Noah, and all those mentioned in Part 2.
Part 4 God is the Savior of all men NT
Part 5 Jesus' Hebrew name Yeshua, is virtually identical to the Hebrew word for save/savior/salvation, Yasha. He
was born the savior, it is for everyone, we are saved through him and he intercedes for us now and will at the
end of times.
Part 6 The process is shown here including the prophecy, fulfillment, post confirmation, exaltation, to the second
coming of how God would implement the salvation of the world through his Son, Jesus Christ.
Part 7 God the Savior and Christ the Savior. Two of them.
Part 8 There are four NT passages showing that Jesus had a Savior, in which case he was not God who doesn't.
Part 9 Paul, Barnabas, Silas and now us as disciples bring salvation to people by spreading the gospel.
We, like the men of God in the OT, are saviors.
1 John 4:14 testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world
Jude 25 to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord

Summary:
Some have taken the word savior to be a specific name only applicable to God, which is not the truth. God is our
Savior, but Moses and David were also saviors of people along with an array of other people in the OT. Savior is a
word that applies to someone who rescues or saves another. God has rescued us from his own wrath through the life
and death of Jesus. We are saved by Jesus Christ defending, interceding, and mediating on our behalf, Jesus is our
savior!
God is our savior and Jesus is our savior, this is true because God works as the savior through Jesus. Without either
of them there would be no eternal life.
Nothing about the word Savior applying to Jesus makes him God, in fact as Part 8 shows Jesus also has a Savior in
which case he is not God who doesn't have or need a Savior.
The full analysis is in 37C Who is the Savior linked here

2/ What Else Did Peter Say?

Peter is quoted by Luke as saying the following
Luke 2:22 Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with
miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves
know.
Luke 2:32 This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses.
Luke 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and
Christ-- this Jesus whom you crucified.
Luke 3:13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the
one whom you delivered up, and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him.
Luke 3:20 And that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you.
Luke 4:10 Let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the
Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead-- by this name this man stands here before
you in good health.
Luke 10:38 You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power,
and how He went about doing good, and healing all who were oppressed by the devil; for God was with
Him.
Luke 11:17 If God therefore gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord
Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?
Each of these passages confirm that when Luke writes of Peter he says that God and Jesus are two distinct and
separate beings, each one of them are extremely difficult to interpret otherwise.
Peter writes:
1 Peter 3:21 through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into
heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him
If Jesus is God then Peter is stating that there are two Gods, which elsewhere he does not believe.
1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!
Jesus has a God and Jesus has a Father.
God does not have a God and God does not have a Father
1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to
God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,

Jesus Christ brings us to God, not God brings us to God.

Jesus was put to death, God cannot die.
Jesus was made alive, God is always alive
2 Peter 1:16-17 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic
Glory, This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,
Here is a distinction between God and Jesus during the transfiguration, there are two of them.
Jesus received honor and glory from God, not God received it from God.
God has a son, not God is a son.
2 Peter 1:21 Peter expresses his wish that grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and
of Jesus our Lord.
Summary:
Peter made several very clear statements regarding, who he believed Jesus to be and who he believed God to be. He
said they were distinct and individual beings.
Since Peter elsewhere consistently maintains a distinction between God and Jesus it would be inconsistent and
contradictory for him to treat them as a single entity in 2 Peter 1:1

3/ Forty Three Different Translations:

As stated at the introduction some translations of 2 Peter 1:1 read like Jesus is God, others read like Jesus is an
additional being to God, and yet others read either way. Here is an examination of 43 different English translations
followed by a look at the original Greek texts.
3a/Jesus Not God
The following translations write the passage in such a way that Jesus is an additional being to God.
ASV
in the
righteousness of our God
and the Savior Jesus Christ
AV
through the righteousness of God
and our Savior Jesus Christ
CJB
through the righteousness of our God
and of our deliverer Yeshua the Messiah
21st KJV
through the righteousness of God
and our Savior Jesus Christ
AKJV, KJV,
3b/ Jesus Is God
The following translations write the passage is such a way that the God is Jesus.
HNV
in the
righteousness of our God and Savior,
ISV
through the righteousness of our God and Savior,
NASB
by the
righteousness of our God and Savior,
WEB
in the
righteousness of our God and Savior,
ERV, EXP, GW, NET, NIRV, NLT, NOG, TLB, VOICE, WE,

Yeshua the Messiah

Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ

3c/ Neutral
The following translations write the passage in such a way that it could be interpreted either way.
ESV
by the
righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
HCSB
through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ
NIV
through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ
RSV
in the
righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ
AMP, CEB, CEV, Darby, DLNT, DR, ESVUK, GNT, GNV, JUB, LEB, MEV, MOUNCE, NABRE, NCV, NIVUK,
NIRV, NKJV, NLV, NRSV, TNIV, WYC, YLT,

3d The Righteousness of God is Jesus.

This viewpoint shows that the previous different variations of interpretation have missed the point altogether. The
passage is not written to determine if Jesus is God or not, but about the righteousness of God. Jesus is the
righteousness of God, Jesus is the righteousness of the God and Savior.
Vs1a Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
Vs1b To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours
Vs1c by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ
Righteousness from G1343/dikaiosyne
Vs1b To the disciples who have obtained the same faith as Peter
Vs1c The emphasis of this passage is the righteousness of God, as it is the righteousness of God that has allowed the
disciples to obtain the equal faith of Peter. The passage is written to explain not whether Jesus is God or not, but to
the disciples to explain how they received their faith, through the righteousness of God. If we read the passage with
this understanding then the comma needs to come after the word savior, as God is the Savior. Try interchanging the
word righteousness with the word son in order to fully realize this interpretation. Jesus is the son of God the
savior, just as he is the righteousness of God the savior.
Jesus is the righteousness of God as per the following passages.
Romans 3:21-22 But now the righteousness (G1343 dikaiosyne) of God has been manifested apart from the
law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it 22 the righteousness (G1343 dikaiosyne) of God
through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
The same words as 2 Peter 1:1 but in a different order. God faith - righteousness - Jesus.
The righteousness has been manifested, Jesus has been manifested.
Mirriam Webster Manifested Definition: readily perceived by the senses, and especially by the sense of sight.
Easily understood or recognized by the mind.
Vs1 Jesus, the righteousness of God, has been manifested.
Vs2 This verse, differently from vs1 it could be argued, doesnt precisely say Jesus is the righteousness rather, we
obtain the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:17 much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness
reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through
Jesus Christ our Lord.
Vs17 God gives the free gift of his righteousness through Jesus Christ.
Vs21 Grace reigned through righteousness through Jesus.
Although righteousness and Jesus are extremely closely linked it doesnt quite say here that one is the other.
1 Corinthians 1:29-30 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him you
are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31
so that, as it is written, Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.
Jesus became wisdom from God and righteousness.
Jesus is the righteousness of God from God.
Here Paul clearly says Jesus is Gods righteousness, just as Peter does in 2 Peter 1:1.
Philippians 1:10-11 so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of
Christ, 11 filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.

Our righteousness comes through Christ. The righteousness came from God, through Jesus to us.
It should now be fairly easy to interpret the following translation that Jesus is the righteousness with or without the
comma.
Vs1c by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ
Vs1c by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ
We are waiting for the appearing of him who is the manifestation of our God and saviors righteousness, Jesus
Christ. We are waiting for the appearing of the righteousness, of our great God and savior. The righteousness is Jesus
Christ. Not that the God and savior is Jesus Christ, but the righteousness of God is Jesus Christ. Once you get the
hang of it, it is very straight forward. (Try inserting the word "son" in place of "righteousness.")
Jesus is called the grace of God in Titus 2:11
Jesus is called the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior in Titus 3:4
Jesus is called the righteousness of our God and Savior in 2 Peter 1:1
3 A-D Summary:
In groups A-C of forty eight translations, six say Jesus is an additional being to God, fourteen say Jesus is God and
twenty eight can be read either way, When looking at how 2 Peter 1:1 is translated the majority write the passage in a
neutral way, meaning that it can be read that Jesus is God or he is not God.
When examining groups A-C, it is the word our and the comma that creates the ambiguity. Why is our relocated
from being after the word God to being in front of the word God? Who determines if there should be a comma, and
who determines where to place it?
Group D shows that the sentence says Jesus is the righteousness of God.
From the evidence so far we have three very possible interpretations depending on the translation used and our pre
conceived ideas.

Part 4/ The Exact Greek Text Order.

Below is the text as it was originally written, quoted from the Nestle-Aland Critical Text. There were no commas and
no capital letters as these became the decisions of the translators. Should it say "savior," rather than "the savior,"
where should the comma be placed if at all?


ev dikaiosyne
ho theos ego kai soter lesous christos
by righteousness the God our and savior
Jesus Christ
Below are twelve examples of the original Greek text from 1 Peter 1:1
Elzevir:

Scrivener

UBS4:
SBLGNT
Newberry
Clausal O
Lexham
NA27
Logos
Byzantine

,


,
,
,

Open Text
TR 1550

Of the twelve versions of original Greek texts that I have access to, they all have the same text order with two of them
having an additional word which transliterated means hemon in Greek or in English our.
Some place a comma and some a period after the last two words, Jesus Christ.
Scrivener and Newberry capitalize the word , God.
Newberry has an indicator before the word , perhaps regarding the capitalization.
Newberry has an indicator before the word indicating they could have included as others did.
The original texts do not use a comma after the word God which would have implied Jesus is a separate being.
The original texts do not use a comma after the word savior which would have implied that Jesus is God.
Summary:
When reading the original Greek text order, it is likely that our pre conceived interpretation stop us from realizing
that any one of the three interpretations shown earlier could be correct based on a base analysis of the Greek alone.
Whichever you decide is the correct way to understand it, take a few moments to reassess and persuade yourself that
another way could be correct.
4b/ This is the order as per the NIV and ESV


ev dikaiosyne
ego ho theos kai soter
lesous christos
by righteousness our the God
and savior
Jesus Christ
This is the text order for the NASB and others that say God is Jesus, it is also the text order for the ESV, NIV and
others that have the neutral position. The issue here is why is the word ego/our moved from being positioned after
the words the God to be in front of the words the God? Some translations have ego/our in both places. Its
movement or addition, by some translators and not others, along with an addition of a comma has created a major
change in the meaning of the sentence. There is absolutely no doubting that these two changes have created the
difference in interpretation. If the word ego/our were left in its original position, and the comma not inserted, it is
unlikely that the sentence would not be claimed as doctrinal proof.
4 A-B Summary:
When reading the altered texts by several of the English translators it is clear that they have caused the differences of
interpretation. When reading the original Greek text order, it certainly does not tell us if Jesus is God. The Greek text
is the word of God and not always the English translators who have been identified as not being in agreement. At the
very least the sentence is ambiguous and can be read either way.

Part 5 NT Greek Text Parallels

In order to assess our passage from another angle, I have found the only two passages where the four words prior to
"savior Jesus Christ" are written in exactly the same order as 1 Peter 1:1. From these we can try to make a fair
assessment of how 1 Peter 1:1 should be interpreted.

ho theos ego kai
of God our and
2 Thessalonians1:12 so that the grace of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to
the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.
As mentioned earlier the words are re-ordered when translated to English, "God" is now placed after "our."

Although 2 Thessalonians, to me, has God and the Lord Jesus Christ as distinct beings it could be argued against
because in Greek it is written "and lord Jesus Christ" without the word "the" prior to "lord."
Revelation 12:10 Now the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come,
Revelation however distinguishes between God and his Christ. Here is an owner and an owned, God in addition to
Jesus. Based on the construction of these parallel passages there is no reason we should interpret 2 Peter 1:1
differently otherwise there would be contradiction rather than harmony between these passages.
5 Summary:
Based on the textual comparison with Revelation 12 vs10 we see that Jesus Christ is a distinct and individual being
from God. This now determines how we must understand 2 Peter 1:1 and that Jesus Christ is an additional being to
God and therefore not God.

Part 6 Sharps Rules

A Trinitarian theologian named Granville Sharp, 1735-1813, invented a grammatical set of rules regarding the
translation of the bible. One rule states that in biblical Greek, when two nouns are Linked by "and" and preceded by a
single article it make them a single entity. Therefore because of the sentence structure in 1 Peter 1:1 where "the God"
is immediately followed by "and savior" it will always, according to Sharp, mean that "the God" is "and savior." This
rule is said to apply to other passages very similar passages such as 2 Peter 1:11, 2:20, 3:2 and 3:18.
Another one of his rules says that if two nouns are each preceded by a single article and linked by and, then they
are distinct and individual beings.
Opposing Considerations:
1/ These rules were never spoken of during Christian debates for the first 1700 years of the Church.
2/ Most translation experts simply do not believe Sharp's Rule is a valid absolute rule! This is proven in part three
which shows that only a minority considered the passage to say Jesus is God.
3/ The NT writers sometimes wrote, for example, "The God of me" (with article) and "_God of me" (without article)
with exactly the same intended meaning. The definite article ("the") was ambiguous in such cases.
4/ When "Jesus" and "Christ" are in apposition to each other ("Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus"), they are nearly always
written without the definite article in the writings of Paul regardless of "Sharp's rule" or any other
grammatical/syntactical consideration
Summary:
It is my understanding that the first of Sharps rules stated is not valid or consistent and does not hold up under the
textual comparison shown in part 7. However the second rule does hold up under textual comparison.

Part 7 Do two Nouns Linked by "and" and preceded by a single article make them a single entity?
Some say, according to one of Sharps rules, that because of the sentence structure in 2 Peter 1:1 where "the God" is
immediately followed by "our and savior" it will always mean that "the God" is "our and savior." From the following
examples it is shown that this formula is not valid.
John 17:3 that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent
Acts 7:55 and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God
Rev 8:2 before (ho) God and seven trumpets
Each of these NT examples show that the quoted formula does not necessitate the supposed conclusion, otherwise
John 17:3
God would have sent himself, the sentence would read the only God whom you have sent.
Acts 7:55
God would be standing next to God and we would have two Gods.
Rev 8:2
God would be the seven trumpets.

7 Summary:
Because of the passage structure shown in John 17, Acts 7 and Revelation 8, the supposed formula from Granville
Sharp that two nouns linked by "and" and preceded by a single article make them a single entity, cannot be valid.
Additionally, this rule could not have been understood or agreed upon by 29 of the 43 translations identified in Part 3
otherwise they would have all put the comma in the same place as the 14 who identified Jesus as God.
Close examination of this much used rule shows it to be a fiction concocted by a man who had a theological agenda
in creating it, namely to prove that this and other verses like it call Jesus God.

Part 8 What if God and Christ are linked by "and," and both proceeded by a definite article?
2 Peter 1:2
.
Ev epignosis ho theou kai lesous ho kyrios ego
By knowledge the God and Jesus the lord our
There are additional passages that support this viewpoint
Ephesians 5:5 in the kingdom of Christ and of God
Rev 20:6 but they will be priests of God and of Christ
Rev 22:1 flowing from the throne of God and the lamb
Rev 22:3 but the throne of God and of the lamb
Summary:
Vs2 For those who agree with the Sharps Rule viewpoint that in written Greek "ho theou" and "ho kyrios" are
individuals who are distinct from one another, then according to vs2 where Jesus is ho kyrios then he must also be
individual and distinct from ho theou. In other words the Lord is not the God, Jesus is not God. All this
according to Sharps rule and 2 Peter 1:1-2.
The ambiguity in vs1 therefore, should now be interpreted by the clarity in vs2.

Part 9 Additional Thoughts

Here are a few random quotes I found during my research that have interesting information.
It is highly improbable that Paul would introduce a profound, unqualified doctrinal affirmation (Christ is
theos) in an incidental manner [such as here], in a context where the assertion is not crucial to the flow of
argument.
Codex Sinaiticus is a very important document. This manuscript was made between 325 and 360 A.D. and is
likely the oldest manuscript we have of the Bible. This manuscript does not say "righteousness of the God of
us and Savior Jesus Christ." Rather, it says, "righteousness of the Lord of us and Savior Jesus Christ." There
are also other manuscripts which read "Lord" instead of "God." The evidence from Codex Sinaiticus shows us
that we cannot be certain that Peter wrote "our God and Savior." This fact alone completely nullifies the
Trinitarian claim concerning this verse.
It is said that the early Church Fathers did not use this passage to argue their theory, although I have no proof of this.

Part 10 Combined Summaries and Overall Conclusion:

1/

Some have taken the word savior to be a specific name only applicable to God, which is not the truth. God
is our Savior, but Moses and David were also saviors of people along with an array of other people in the OT.
Savior is a word that applies to someone who rescues or saves another. God has rescued us from his own
wrath through the life and death of Jesus. We are saved by Jesus Christ defending, interceding, and mediating
on our behalf, Jesus is our savior!
God is our savior and Jesus is our savior, this is true because God works as the savior through Jesus. Without
either of them there would be no eternal life.
Nothing about the word Savior applying to Jesus makes him God, in fact as Part 8 shows Jesus also has a
Savior in which case he is not God who doesn't have or need a Savior.

2/

Peter made several very clear statements regarding who he believed Jesus to be and who he believed God to
be, which said they were distinct and individual beings.

3/

In groups A-C of forty eight translations, six say Jesus is an additional being to God, fourteen say Jesus is
God and twenty eight can be read either way, When looking at how 2 Peter 1:1 is translated the majority write
the passage in a neutral way, meaning that it can be read that Jesus is God or he is not God.
When examining groups A-C, it is the word our and the comma that creates the ambiguity. Why is our
relocated from being after the word God to being in front of the word God? Who determines if there should be
a comma, and who determines where to place it?
Group D shows that the sentence says Jesus is the righteousness of God.
From the evidence so far we have three very possible interpretations depending on the translation used and
our pre conceived ideas.

4/

When reading the altered texts by several of the English translators it is clear that they have caused the
differences of interpretation. When reading the original Greek text order, it certainly does not tell us if Jesus is
God. The Greek text is the word of God and not always the English translations which have been identified as
not being in agreement. It is the Greek text that has the last word and it is the Greek text that has nullified any
claim that Titus 2:13 say that Jesus is God. To me the original text reads that Jesus is an additional being to
the great God, at the very least the entire sentence is ambiguous and can be read either way.

5/

Based on the textual comparison with Revelation 12 vs10 we see that Jesus Christ is a distinct and individual
being from God. This now determines how we must understand 2 Peter 1:1 and that Jesus Christ is an
additional being to God and therefore not God.

6/

It is my understanding that the first of Sharps rules stated is not valid or consistent and does not hold up
under textual comparison, however the second rule does hold up under the same comparison.

7/

Because of the passage structure shown in John 17, Acts 7 and Revelation 8, the supposed formula from
Granville Sharp that two nouns linked by "and" and preceded by a single article make them a single entity,
cannot be valid.
Additionally, this rule could not have been understood or agreed upon by 29 of the 43 translations identified
in Part 3 otherwise they would have all put the comma in the same place as the 14 who identified Jesus as
God.
Close examination of this much used rule shows it to be a fiction concocted by a man who had a theological
agenda in creating it, namely to prove that this and other verses like it call Jesus God.

8/

For those agree with the Sharps Rule viewpoint that in written Greek "ho theou" and "ho kyrios" are
individuals who are distinct from one another, then according to vs2 where Jesus is ho kyrios then he must
also be individual and distinct from ho theou. In other words the Lord is not the God, Jesus is not God.
All this according to Sharps rule and 2 Peter 1:1-2

Final Conclusion
Throughout the bible there are numerous men who were saviors, many of them on God's behalf. However God is
always the ultimate and final savior, without him the men would not be saviors. The bible then prophecies God
sending Jesus to be a savior on his behalf, this is fulfilled through scripture. The fact that Jesus has a savior, on its
own show that Jesus is not God. At the end times God and Jesus will return together to deliver our salvation.
There is no doubt that 2 Peter 1:1 on its own, is at the very least an ambiguous passage. Of forty three translators they
are fairly equally divided, many say Jesus is God and many do not. I have identified three very legitimate ways the
passage can be understood, each with strong support. The "Sharps rule" formula that is supposed to add strength to
the Jesus is God argument actually works against that idea.
When examining Peter's views of both God and Christ it is clear that he considered them distinct and individual
beings. Because of Peter's views we should understand 2 Peter 1:1 in the way he considered them.
Here in the translations of 2 Peter 1:1 we have a variant, and even with the supporting evidence it is still hard to
determine which of these three interpretations is correct.
A/ The appearing of our God and Savior who is Jesus Christ
B/ The appearing of our God, along with our Savior who is Jesus Christ.
C/ The appearing of the glory of our God and Savior. The glory is Jesus Christ.
For me the strongest answers are C or B in that order. There are too many reasons for A to not stand.
Therefore, because of the evidence provided here specifically in parts five and eight, and the ambiguity of the
passage, 2 Peter 1:1 does not show that Jesus is God.