|For an Answer Home||Mars Hill Index||Bibliography||Glossary|
|The Bible Gateway||The Blue Letter Bible||The Greek New Testament (NA26)||Greek & Hebrew Lexicons|
Mars Hill Apologetic Discussions
RE: Why Not Plural?
The context of Gal 4:8 makes it clear that Paul is contrasting those that are by nature not gods with the One True God. The plural "gods" isn't a big mystery - the Galatians were former polytheists.
The WT seems to accept this contrast:
"Also, in his argument to the Galatians to prevent their enslavement to Judaistic teachings, Paul said "When you did not know God, then it was that you slaved for those who by nature are not gods." These false gods they had worshiped were by their very origin and production not truly gods; it was impossible for them to come into such a status. Not merely did they have no authority to be gods, but they did not have such qualities in their intrinsic nature or makeup.--Ga 4:8" (Aid, p. 1207).
So, according to your own Organization, we have a distinction between God's "inherent nature" and those "gods" that don't have that nature. This is the distinction I have been making all along.
The question then becomes, are there "gods" that DO have that "inherent nature?"
I see nothing whatsoever in this passage that implies that there are
others that ARE gods by nature, other than the True God. The contrast is
between the One and all the rest.
|<< Previous Post|