[Mr Rogers]

"And the Word was God (ο λογος — kai theos ēn ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ο λογος — ho theos ēn ho logos That would mean that all of God was expressed in τεος — ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (πνευμα ο τεος — ho logos) and the predicate without it (ο τεος αγαπη εστιν — theos) just as in John 4:24 ο Λογος σαρχ εγενετο — pneuma ho theos can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” So in 1 John 4:16 ho theos agapē estin can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.” Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality." - https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/rwp/john-1.html, also https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bnb/john-1.html

[Dupin]

I guess either Robinson quotes Wallace or Wallace quoted him. The argument suffers from several flaws. First, it assumes that John anticipated and worded the verse to carefully rebut some heresies which came along well after John's death. Sorry, I don't buy that, period. Hence his argument falls into the category of circular reasoning I mentioned in my comment. Second, his examples are of different constructions, so they are apples to oranges. For example, both nouns precede the verb and in Jn. 1:1 only one does. Even in their cases another rule which applies to Jn 1:1 applies, one of the nouns in each case is not a name or title, so the definite article can be taken as distributive, so understood. In the case of John, he wrote using names and or a title which nullifies the "distribution" of the article of the other examples. Sarx and Agape are not names or titles. So the Theos in the last clause in Jn. 1:1, it is indefinite, all arguments notwithstanding. We find the same construction used in Acts 28:6 and with the Theos being the anarthrous noun as well. Here is how it gets rendered: Acts 28:6 (ASV)  But they expected that he would have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but when they were long in expectation and beheld nothing amiss came to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god. (Bishops)  Howbeit, they wayted whe he shoulde haue swolne, or fallen downe dead sodenlie: But after they had loked a great while, and sawe no harme come to him, they (Geneva)  Howbeit they wayted whe he should haue swolne, or fallen downe dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and sawe no inconuenience come to him, they changed their mindes, and said, That he was a God. (Greek NT TR)  οι δε προσεδοκων αυτον μελλειν πιμπρασθαι η καταπιπτειν αφνω νεκρον επι πολυ δε αυτων προσδοκωντων και θεωρουντων μηδεν ατοπον εις αυτον γινομενον μεταβαλλομενοι ελεγον θεον αυτον ειναι (KJV-1611)  Howbeit, they looked when hee should haue swollen, or fallen downe dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harme come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a God. (LEB)  But they were expecting that he was going to swell up or suddenly to fall down dead. So after they had waited for a long time and saw nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and began saying that he was a god. (LITV)  But they expected him to be about to become inflamed, or suddenly to fall down dead. But over much time, they expecting and seeing nothing amiss happening to him, changing their minds, they said him to be a god. (MKJV)  But they expected him to be about to become inflamed, or to fall down dead suddenly, But over much time expecting and seeing nothing amiss happening to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god. (RV)  But they expected that he would have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but when they were long in expectation, and beheld nothing amiss came to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god. I left the Greek in the list so that you could see the verse has the same construction as Jn. 1:1. Yet, in all cases, the indefinite article is supplied because of the peculiar grammar Roberson and Wallace argues against. It seems that their understanding of the nuances of the passage only applies to John out of the dozens of examples in the Bible of the same construction. That is why theology instead exegesis is the basis for their arguments. Concerning the Ad Hominem used in your signature, I offer the following: 1Co_3:19  For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it has been written, "He takes the wise in their own craftiness." (Job 5:13)