John 1:1c

From: DR. KEN PULLIAM (thedoc@aztec.asu.edu)
Date: Wed Aug 16 1995 - 18:34:02 EDT


The comments by Alan Feuerbacher were excellent. I think there are
three legitimate grammatical possibilites for "THEOS EN HO LOGOS".

1) The Word was the God (THEOS is inherently definite).
2) The Word was a god (THEOS is indefinite).
3) The Word was God (THEOS is qualitative).

#1 would be Sabellianism as Westcott points out in his commentary.
#2 would be Arianism.
#3 is orthodox Christianity. It is orthodox because it harmonizes better
with the rest of Scripture.

I appreciate your quote from Murray Harris, but I wonder if you have
misunderstood him. I don't think he is saying that Paul, Jesus, etc.
were polytheists. The Maltans certainly were and thus the rendering in
Acts is appropriate (similar situation with Nebuchadnezzar in Dan. 3).
But in the case of Paul and Jesus, I think you have to understand their
words in the context of 1 Cor. 8. There are many gods and lords as far as
the pagan world is concerned. In a sense, anything that is worshipped is
a god but that does not mean that it is truly God. I will admit that
Harris' language is a little confusing.

--
Ken R. Pulliam, Ph.D.
Chandler, Arizona
thedoc@aztec.asu.edu


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:25 EDT