22

Revelation 3:14 (KJV)

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Most translations say "the beginning of God's creations" or "the beginning of the creation of God." A few translations say something such as "the chief of God's creation."

Is "the beginning of the creation of God" the most correct? Is it saying that Christ was created by God?

  • 1
    Note that saying that Christ was created does not necessitate that Christ was a created being. God replicating Himself into another perfect manifestation is entirely feasible, and every regular Christian already believes that He did this at least 4,000 years later in human form. – Andrew Oct 6 '17 at 12:11
  • This is important particularly in reference to accusations of eisegesis, because (1.) it is therefore not necessarily eisegesis to say that Christ was created and (2.) it may very well be eisegesis to say that Christ was not. – Andrew Oct 6 '17 at 12:11
  • I honestly don't understand why one would treat Revelation 3:14 any different than 1:8, 21:6, or 22:13. – Lucian Jun 3 at 8:51

17 Answers 17

25

Translation

From the Apostolic Bible:
enter image description here

Your first question is in regards to the translation. It seems that all three would be pretty valid translations. The original Greek for "the beginnings" here is arche:

Strong's G746
1. beginning, origin
2. the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3. that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4. the extremity of a thing a) of the corners of a sail
5. the first place, principality, rule, magistracy a) of angels and demons

So, "the beginnings" seems to be a valid translation. Personally, I like the translation that the Apostolic Bible gives there: "the source of the creation of God"

Was Jesus created?

No, it's saying that Jesus was the source of all created things. It reflects back on this verse:

John 1:1-3 (NASB)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Summary

This isn't saying that Jesus was created. It's saying that Jesus was the source of creation. He was the beginning of all things. It's showing that through him, all things were created.

| improve this answer | |
  • 3
    I'm interested that you quote John 1.1 without mentioning that the second word of the verse is αρχη. It rather confirms your point, I think! – lonesomeday Nov 24 '11 at 21:16
  • I appreciate the interpretation in light of the wider body of John's writings. +1 – Kazark Apr 3 '12 at 14:35
  • 2
    "Source" is completely at odds with actual Koine usage, the context (where he is the "Amen" (God's "Yes-man") and the "faithful and true witness" (who testifies reliably all that God shows him). So "source" is patently false. God (who he refers to as "my God" several times in the chapter) works through the king his servant. -1 – Ruminator Sep 10 '17 at 19:50
  • 3
    And by the way, what is a "source" of the Genesis 1 creation? That's nonsense. Is it saying he's the raw material? It's utter foolishness and yet so far 21 upvotes and marked as the answer because it comports with the Trinity dogma better than what it actually says. This generation has no love for truth. – Ruminator Sep 11 '17 at 0:22
  • 2
    This is a very incorrect answer despite the up vote. He was “the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev.3:14 KJV ASV NASB) . “ Beginning” (Greek, ar-khe) is used by John in his Bible writings more than 20 times and on all occasions have the meaning of “beginning”. So correctly Jesus was created by God as the beginning of God’s creation. Prov. 8;22 NRSV reads “The Lord created me at the beginning[a] of his work,[b] the first of his acts of long ago. Some uses of the word “arkhe” by John, John 1:1, 1:2 8:25,44 1 John 2:7,13,14 , Rev. 21:6, 22:1313 . "Source" is incorrect in view of John's use – Ozzie Ozzie Aug 24 '18 at 17:01
9

There are, though, passages from the Greek translation of the Hebrew, the LXX, that might be mentioned. They are:

Gen.10:10; "beginning of the kingdom of him"-"arche tes basileias autou."

Gen.49:3 ; "first of the children of me"-"arche teknon mou."

Deut.21:17;"first of the children of him"-"arche teknon autou."

Hos.1:2 "beginning of the word of Lord"-"arche logou kuriou."

and from the New Testament:

Mat. 24:8."beginning of pangs of birth-"arche odinon."

Mark1:1 "beginning of the good news"-"arche tou euggeliou."

Phil.4:15 "at the start of declaring of the good news"- "arche tou enaggeliou."

These all contain the word "ARCHE" as does Rev.3:14 followed by a noun in the genitive case. What should be done is not look at the word "ARCHE" only but we must look at similar constructions which we have above. All the examples above show that the one, ones or events are the results of the action of another one. It is a passive meaning we have here, not in the sense of causing the action/results. They have the meaning of "the start of," or "the first of." Hence we would be on scriptural grounds entirely to say that the meaning of "arche", "beginning," at Rev.3:14 was also with that meaning. He, Jesus Christ, was the "first of" God's creation. Or, as Edward Harwood's translation of 1768 puts it; "The very first Being that the Deity called into existence."

| improve this answer | |
  • Hello, and welcome to Biblical Hermeneutics! Thank you for your contribution. I made a few minor edits for typos and formatting. Please also remember to properly cite the text by including the English translation or Greek version you are quoting. (I suspect you may be translating your own LXX here, which is fine; just say that.) – Susan Oct 4 '14 at 3:17
  • @sean Your handling of the example was in my always ever so humble opinion spot on. However, I don't believe the Genesis creation is in view but rather the new creation which I will show in my answer. – Ruminator Sep 10 '17 at 19:55
7

Having researched and discussed this verse in depth a few years ago for 4-5 months, I would say yes, that is exactly what the verse is saying, though many are far too quick to reach for an alternate reading.

In order to properly understand this verse, a few things need to be understood...

First, when we look to the lexical field (or sometimes called the semantic field) of a given word, the various meanings attributed to it, while not necessarily being synonymous, typically relate to a specific phenomenon or basic idea [1]. It is typically with reference to this central phenomenon that the lexical field of a word shifts over time, either adding or losing meanings. When it comes to the word arche, the phenomenon described by its lexical field can basically be described as "being the outermost point of something". All of the uses of the word arche described this phenomenon in some fashion.

Second, when translating a word from source language A into target language B, we must be careful not to assume that the entire lexical field of the word in language B can be read back into the original word in language A. In translation, words are often chosen because of semantic overlap rather than semantic equivalence. This means that source word A could have implications not present in target word B, and target word B could have meanings that are not properly within the lexical field of source word A.

When it comes to Rev. 3:14, as you've noted, most translations choose to render it along the lines of "the beginning of the creation of/by God". Some, however, finding the implications of this rendering unacceptable, reach for a different translation, commonly choosing "ruler" (NIV), "source" (Apostolic Bible, God's Word Translation) or, similarly, "originator" (HCSB, ISV, NET Bible), in place of "beginning". In considering whether these are appropriate renderings, there are a few things that should be taken into account.

Within the NT, as I recall, the word arche appears approximately 60 times. Setting aside the disputed verse of Rev. 3:14 for a moment, in every single other case, arche always refers to the outermost point or extremity of something, whether a beginning in relation to some time period, the first in some series, the principalities of rulership within some community, or, rarely, the corners or extremities of a sail. The usage of arche in the LXX (the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT) also stays within these boundaries. If you accept the traditional and ancient view that both the gospel of John and Revelation were written by the same person, then John is responsible for roughly 40% of the occurrences of arche in the entire NT. In every single case outside Rev. 3:14, John uses arche to mean either the beginning part of a time period or the first member of a series. Furthermore, every single time that arche appears as the head noun in a genitive statement in the NT, the genitive statement is properly classified as a "partitive genitive" [2], which means that the arche is part of the noun or noun phrase to which it is being related, being in some way the outermost part or example of it. And again, this pattern follows throughout the LXX as well.

Having observed this consistent precedent up to the point of Rev. 3:14 and finding in that verse that arche appears as the head noun in a genitive statement, it is clear that the most precedented translation of verse 14 is "the beginning of the creation of/by God", where "beginning" holds the meaning of 'first member in the series' or "first-created". BAGD [3] originally gave this meaning as being a linguistic possibility, but subsequently upgraded it in BADG [4] to "linguistically probable", even though they (not unexpectedly) still opt for a meaning of "first-cause".

And yet, as I've mentioned, some appeal instead to a rendering of "ruler" or "source". And, in fact, even when rendered as "beginning", many who find the idea of Christ as a creation unacceptable read "beginning" as though it means "source". So let's consider these alternatives.

Those who opt for a reading of "ruler" at this verse appeal to certain of the meanings like those given by Strong's Concordance, specifically:

  • the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
  • the first place, principality, rule, magistracy

The problem here is that arche does not have the meaning of a personal ruler. The preferred term for that is archon, which is what John consistently uses to convey that meaning. Rather, when arche was used on occasion (in plural or with "all/every" and along with other words of rulership and authority) to refer to rule and leadership, it was with reference to the primacy of rank of some group of persons in relation to contextual contemporaries, explicit or implied. In these cases, it is generally best to render it as "principalities", as it refers to the members of a community who are in a position of leadership or authority with respect to the other members of that community. In other words, it is consistent with the central phenomenon described by arche's lexical field, and though general leadership is being indicated, it is leadership by those who are part of the community that they lead. But again, it is not used to reference a personal ruler as would be the case if arche were rendered "ruler" at Rev 3:14. So "ruler" is not a viable option at Rev. 3:14, and even if it were, it would not remove the partitive aspect from the word arche or remove the arche from membership in "the creation of/by God".

The impossibility of "ruler" is recognized by Coffman's Commentary on this verse:

The beginning of the creation of God ... Plummer pointed out that the words here bear two possible interpretations:

The two meanings are: (1) that which would make Christ the first created thing of all things God created, and (2) that which would understand Christ as the Source of all the things God created.

Plummer and many other able scholars declare the second meaning to be the one intended here.

So, Coffman's Commentary recognizes that "ruler" is not a viable option here. They note that the only two possible meanings are "first-created" and "source". So let's move on to the "source" option.

It's interesting to consider Trinitarian Albert Barnes commentary on this verse:

The phrase used here is susceptible, properly, of only one of the following significations, namely, either:

(a)that he was the beginning of the creation in the sense that he caused the universe to begin to exist - that is, that he was the author of all things; or.

(b)that he was the first created being; or.

(c)that he holds the primacy over all, and is at the head of the universe.

It is not necessary to examine any other proposed interpretations, for the only other senses supposed to be conveyed by the words, that he is the beginning of the creation in the sense that he rose from the dead as the first-fruits of them that sleep, or that he is the head of the spiritual creation of God, axe so foreign to the natural meaning of the words as to need no special refutation. As to the three significations suggested above, it may be observed, that the first one - that he is the author of the creation, and in that sense the beginning - though expressing a scriptural doctrine John 1:3; Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:16, is not in accordance with the proper meaning of the word used here - ἀρχὴ archē The word properly refers to the “commencement” of a thing, not its “authorship,” and denotes properly primacy in time, and primacy in rank, but not primacy in the sense of causing anything to exist. The two ideas which run through the word as it is used in the New Testament are those just suggested.... The word is not, therefore, found in the sense of authorship, as denoting that one is the beginning of anything in the sense that he caused it to have an existence.

Barnes allows three possible meanings for the word arche, which are 1) Source, 2) First-Created, and 3) Ruler.

The first, "source", he dismisses, because arche does not properly carry this sense anywhere in scripture.

Regarding the meaning of "first-created", Barnes says:

As to the second of the significations suggested, that it means that he was the first created being, it may be observed ... that this is not a necessary signification of the phrase, since no one can show that this is the only proper meaning which could be given to the words, and therefore the phrase cannot be adduced to prove that he is himself a created being. If it were demonstrated from other sources that Christ was, in fact, a created being, and the first that God had made, it cannot be denied that this language would appropriately express that fact. But it cannot be made out from the mere use of the language here; and as the language is susceptible of other interpretations, it cannot be employed to prove that Christ is a created being....

The third signification, therefore, remains, that he is “the beginning of the creation of God,” in the sense that he is the head or prince of the creation

This is all rather telling.

Barnes's rules out "source" as a possibility, since the meaning as it would be intended here is utterly unprecedented in scripture. As for the meaning of "first-created", he finds it permissible to rule it out only because he thinks it is not the only possible reading. But the alternative reading that he thinks is still available to him is the equivalent of "ruler", which actually is not possible here, as we've already seen. In fact, where John means to call Christ "ruler" or "prince" as Barnes suggests, he does so using archon, as at Rev. 1:5.

So, while Plummer (via Coffman's commentary) points out the two possible meanings of arche at Rev 3:14 as “first-created” and “source”, Barnes, who is also a Trinitarian, claims the two possible meanings are “first-created” and “ruler”, explicitly ruling out “source” as having no basis in the entirety of scripture and ruling out any attempt to limit the meaning to the ‘new creation’ as being so foreign to the context that it requires no special argument in refutation. Barnes chooses “ruler” because it allows him to avoid choosing “first-created”. But Plummer rightly doesn’t allow for that possibility. That leaves Barnes with “first-created” as the only possible meaning. And Barnes leaves Plummer with “first-created” as the only possible meaning.

But the situation still gets quite a bit worse for the "source" rendering. You'll recall that at the start of this post I mentioned the issues of lexical field and semantic overlap versus semantic equivalence. We'll now return to these issues as they relate to the rendering of "source".

While the lexical field of arche did expand to incorporate a meaning like "source", there are a few things that need to be said about this. First of all, it could properly be considered a specialized meaning of the word. It was introduced, seemingly by the Greek philosopher Anaximander, within the context of specific philosophical speculations. The sense of "source" was not a typical or common meaning of the word arche, and there's no reason at all to think that John's readers would have thought of this meaning when reading Revelation, especially considering that such a reading would have so thoroughly departed from the consistent usage of the word in the NT, and in John's writings specifically, and from the sense of the grammatical construct, which everywhere else in the NT and LXX acted as a partitive genitive, identifying the arche as part of the genitive substantive. This meaning of something like "source" didn't really enter into Christian usage until it was picked up by non-Jewish Christians who were influenced by earlier Greek philosophers, and even then it was not very common. To attribute this meaning to John at Rev. 3:14 in light of the context in which he was writing could in some sense be said to be anachronistic, but more than this, it is simply implausible to think that his readers would have understood him to be making use of a relatively obscure and specialized meaning of arche that was so foreign to his common usage, to the usage throughout the NT, and to the usage in the LXX, which is the version of the OT that the NT writers typically used and quoted from.

But that's far from the only problem, and this is where we come back to the issue of semantic overlap versus semantic equivalence. While arche can in some cases be translated by the English word "source", the lexical field of "source" includes meanings that fall outside the lexical field of arche. More specifically, while the English word "source" can refer either to an intrinsic, related, partitive source or an extrinsic, unrelated, non-partitive source, the Greek arche only refers to the former type of source, not the latter.

In private correspondence with Dr. Jason BeDuhn of Northern Arizona University, he described the situation like this:

Arche's range of meaning covers beginning, origin, source, primacy IN CONTINUITY AND ONGOING CONNECTION WITH that which is derived or dependent or subordinate to it.... It means "source" in the sense of a fountainhead, not unrelated cause.... [There are] tensions between the definition of arche given in some of the lexicons, and their own examples, all of which contain the idea of what we might call an organic connection between the particular arche and that which comes from it or follows it in order of existence or depends upon it as its root or master. Even in the technical philosophical use of the term, the concept is one of continuity and outflow from the "source" to its dependent forms in the world.... [They] would have had to choose different phrasing to suggest something different, such as a "ruler" or "cause" disconnected and apart from that which is ruled or caused -- something Christian writers were quite capable of doing when they wanted to. So when they use arche we must assume that they are comfortable with the typical connotations of the particular aspect of its meaning that fits the context

If the implication of BeDuhn's comment isn't clear, allow me to elaborate.

When people appeal to a meaning of "source" at Rev. 3:14, they are intending to render the statement in a way the makes Christ separate from creation rather than part of it, making him an uncreated being who is the external, disconnected source of creation who is apart from the created order. Arche does not allow for this type of source. It only allows for a source that corresponds to the central phenomenon described by its lexical field, which is the outermost point of something. So arche was, at times, used to mean the outermost or first example of something that in some way or sense gave rise to the rest, but it was not used to mean the unrelated cause or source of some thing or group of things that would fall into a different contextual classification than the arche itself. So the arche of the creation of/by God, if it was to be viewed as the "source" of that creation, would itself need to be part of "the creation of/by God". To instead interpret the statement as calling Christ the external, uncreated source of God's creation would be to appeal to a meaning that is not only unprecedented in scripture (both the NT and LXX), but unprecedented in all of Greek literature, including technical philosophical literature.

We can examine the use of arche in the sense of something like "source" in the Greek literature of the ancient world, from Anaximander through to Aristotle, Philo, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Josephus (and perhaps a few others I'm not recalling off the top of my head), and when they use arche with a meaning something like "source" they consistently do so with the sense that the arche is part of or is to be grouped with that which it gives rise to in the context. And while Aristotle in particular gives meanings of both an immanent and non-immanent source, he must be understood in the specific context of metaphysics, where he uses 'immanent' to mean something that is literally indwelling in a larger whole (e.g. the foundation of a building; the heart or brain of an animal), and non-immanent to mean something that has individual existence, even though it is to be classified in the same contextual category as that which it gives rise to (e.g. a human father as the arche of his human son; the first angry words in a discussion as the arche of the resulting argument).

Over all this time, and throughout all these sources, there is no clear or even particularly plausible instance where arche is used to mean the kind of external or unrelated "source" or "cause" that people intend when they use such words to translate arche at Rev. 3:14. And if by some chance there was, in fact, some case somewhere that somebody happened to use it this way, it would have to be considered so exceedingly rare that such a meaning could not possibly be accepted as John's meaning at Rev. 3:14 and it must be considered implausible in the extreme that the readers of Revelation would have understood it this way. In fact, it might even be reasonable to consider such a case as a possibly mistaken use of the word by the author.

It is for these types of reasons and more that BeDuhn says that however one wants to translate arche at Rev 3:14, including such options as "source, principle, top, pinnacle", it must be considered "in every case inclusive within the genitive 'of creation,' not separate."

It also will not do to attempt to evade this issue by suggesting that Christ was part of creation because he joined it when he took on a human body, but was also the uncreated source of God’s creation. The language of the statement necessitates that it is in his role as the arche of the creation by God that Christ is a part of that creation. It simply will not do to claim that Christ is the uncreated, unrelated source of creation but that arche can be used because he later took on a human body.

When the NT writers wanted to identify some person or thing as the unrelated cause of something else, they had simple ways of doing so, but the whole structure of the statement was different, making use of an adverb like "pothen" or a preposition like "ek". This appears to be the consistent pattern of the entire NT and of John himself, who does so around a dozen times. Where an English translation has a statement in which "source" is used as a noun, like "What is the source of your teachings?" the original Greek reads something closer to "whence come your teachings?" This is simply how the idea of some separate source or origin of a thing was expressed by the writers of the Greek scriptures. Alternatively, they would use the preposition, ek, such as when the Father is identified as the source of all creation at 1 Cor. 8:6, the one out of whom all creation proceeds. Again, from Dr. BeDuhn:

Greek was quite capable of referring to a cause or an external creator without muddling it with an organic source or root of something.

So, considering all this, even if one chooses to translate arche at Rev. 3:14 with the scripturally unprecedented rendering of "source", this would not allow for an escape from the 'first-created' implication. At most, it would merely make Christ the first-created being who then gave rise to the rest of creation. This is, in fact, the Biblical teaching, but it is gratuitous to read that as the intended meaning here.

There is yet another problem with the rendering of "source", however. In light of the phenomenon that is described by the lexical field of arche (the outermost point of something), identifying Christ as the arche = source of the creation by God essentially reverses the order explicitly laid out in 1 Cor. 8:6. If we take the words, "the source of the creation by God," for what they logically mean, it makes Christ the origin of the creative works and God the intermediate agent. This is especially so if arche is applied to Christ in the same context as God is mentioned (i.e. Christ being on the creator side of the equation rather than the created side), since that would directly identify Christ as the first and outermost point of the creative process. Rather than the sequence of God > Christ > creation shown in I Cor 8:6, it would now be Christ > God > creation. This should be reason enough to reject this reading of John's words.

Additionally, from very early on Rev. 3:14 was recognized as a reference to Prov. 8:22, with Christ being identified as the personified Wisdom in that passage. There, in the LXX, Wisdom explicitly says: The Lord created me, the beginning of his ways for his works.

Again, it must be recalled that the LXX is the version of the OT that was used and quoted by the NT writers. So, in referencing Prov. 8:22, John was specifically referencing a passage where the personified Wisdom that Christ is related to is explicitly identified as having been created. And so we have...

Prov. 8:22 - "The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways"

Rev. 3:14 - "The beginning of the creation by God"

Finally, the closest parallel to this verse in the NT is found at Mark 13:19, where arche is used to mean the beginning part/time of God's creation, not its source:

"For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created (ἀρχῆς κτίσεως ἣς ἔκτισεν ὁ θεὸς) until now, and never will be." - ESV

So, when all the evidence is considered, it seems quite clear that there is only one precedented way to translate and understand Rev. 3:14, which is to read it as identifying Christ as the first creation of God. It is the only meaning that is even recognized as being possible by all people on both sides of the debate. Among those who find an identification of Christ as the first creation to be unacceptable, there is no agreement on which alternative reading is actually allowable or plausible here. On the one hand we have some who recognize "source" to be entirely unprecedented and implausible in this setting (not to mention that it simply doesn't allow for the meaning of a non-partitive source) and who opt instead for "ruler", but on the other hand we have those who recognize that arche cannot actually mean a personal ruler at all and who opt instead for "source". And yet, there is no disagreement that "first-created" is a perfectly valid meaning and that if Christ were, in fact, the first created being, this would be a perfectly appropriate way of expressing that idea. Those who recognize this fact and find both alternatives to be unacceptable here but who are committed to not allowing Christ to be identified as God's first creation attempt to limit the context only to Christ's resurrection and the "new creation", but as Barnes points out in his commentary on this verse, the idea "that he is the beginning of the creation in the sense that he rose from the dead as the first-fruits of them that sleep, or that he is the head of the spiritual creation of God, axe so foreign to the natural meaning of the words as to need no special refutation."

I therefore say again that, yes, Rev. 3:14 says Christ was created by God, and I concur with Dr. BeDuhn when he says of the contrary position:

The opposing argument depends on special pleading and is led by theological assumptions of what the verse must say to be consistent with a certain concept of Jesus, rather than by the trend of the evidence.

-----------------------

FOOTNOTES

[1] Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and Communication, Adrian Akmajian, Richard A. Demers, Ann K. Farmer, Robert M. Harnish, pg. 240

[2] http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gcase.html

[3] Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Second Edition, Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, Frederick W. Danker by Arndt and Gingrich (abbreviated as BAGD)

[4] Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition, Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, (abbreviated as BDAG)

| improve this answer | |
  • Welcome to Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange! Please do not forget to include appropriate references that you used to get your conclusions. – Paul Vargas Nov 11 '14 at 6:56
  • 1
    Hi Paul. Unfortunately it's a little difficult to do that since I'm limited to two links and many of the sources are easiest to reference with a direct link. – HeKS Nov 11 '14 at 20:39
  • @HeKS, Proverbs 8:22 (LXX) reads: "The Lord made me a ruler ( Greek: ARCHON) of his works..." This shows that the Greek word ARCHE in Revelation 3:14 means "ruler." In fact, Luke 20:20 undoubtly used the sense of 'rule'/'power'/'authority' for ARCHE. – Radz Matthew C. Brown Feb 11 '15 at 20:22
  • @Radz Matthew Co Brown - Prov. 8:22 (LXX) actually reads: "The Lord CREATED (Gr. EKTISEN) me the BEGINNING (Gr. ARCHEN) of his ways for his works". Prov. 8:22 does not used ARCHON. It uses the accusative form of ARCHE, which is ARCHEN. – HeKS Apr 7 '15 at 4:37
  • Further to Prov. 8:22, the LXX is using ARCHE to translate the Hebrew word RESHITH. RESHITH means 'beginning', 'first', 'foremost', 'chief example', but it does not mean either 'ruler' or 'source' (whether partitive or non-partitive). – HeKS Apr 7 '15 at 14:19
4

Rev 3:14 and Prov 8:22 are in direct parallelism. In Prov 8:22 what is said the way of God is the creation of God as it can be observed from the next ideas. So in Prov 8:22 Wisdom is said to be the beginning of the creation of God. We can observe that here it doesn’t say in the beginning of the way of God. If the Wisdom was said to be 'in' the beginning of the creation of God, this would make wisdom the beginning of creation and part of creation. But in Prov 8:22 we don’t have the preposition ‘in’ as we have in Gen 1:1. So as in Prov 8:22 Wisdom is the beginning of the creation of God. This makes Wisdom the beginning of creation but not part of creation.

The Hebrew word translated as possessed in Prov 8:22 is qanah which could mean both created and begotten. How can we select between these two meanings (create and beget)? It should not be based on our religious or personal preference. The clue for this is found in verses 8:23 (Hebrew word nisaqti) and 8:25 (Hebrew word holaltii) which both mean birth definitely. So based on this the meaning of qanah in 8:22 is begotten. Otherwise if we select create (or related) translations for this word we don’t have reason apart from personal or theological bias as this word means both.

Christ as the apxh of creation (Prov. viii 22, Col. i 15-18, Rev. iii 14.). C.F Burney, The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 27, page 165. God created everything using his wisdom as indicated in Prov 8 and elsewhere. So here Wisdom is spoken of as source/originator of the creation of God. Not as a created being in the beginning of the creation. As, I think we all agree, Wisdom is not created as God had wisdom from eternity.

We also know that Jesus is said to the Wisdom of God. The same statement we see at Rev 3:14 calling Jesus the beginning of the creation of God. Here again it doesn’t say “in” the beginning of God’s creation as we don’t have Greek word “en” here. So as in Rev 3:14 Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God, this makes Jesus the beginning of creation and but not part of creation.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Welcome to BHSE! We're a little different here, please take our Site Tour as it will help you in asking and answering questions. Thank you! – Tau Jan 29 '16 at 13:23
  • 2
    I believe you have a valuable answer, but it would benefit greatly if you would format it by: 1) Break it up into paragraphs, 2) Capitalize when needed, 3) Use the Blockquote icon in separating quotations from your commentary. The end result is that it is more "readable" and therefore more likely to generate positive responses. Thank you! – Tau Jan 29 '16 at 13:31
  • @SilasieAmagn Your comments are very good and thank you for them. However Jesus is said to be "made wisdom unto us" meaning the saints: 1 Cor 1:30 Berean Literal Bible "But out of Him, you are in Christ Jesus, who has been made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption,"... I will elaborate in my answer. – Ruminator Sep 10 '17 at 20:02
3

Is Revelation 3:14 saying that Christ was created by God?

A key word search on Biblegateway , 1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament (WHNU) revealed that John uses the word "αρχη" pronounced "ar-khe" twenty times and is commonly translated "beginning" on all occasions by translators .However it appears that on this verse some translators choose to change it ,to "source" , "origin" or "originator" etc , in this verse .

"Commentary on Revelation 3:14" ar-khe- beginning, by theologian Albert Barnes.

studylight.org/commentaries/bnb/revelation-3.html. 1870.

The Greek word translated “beginning” or “origin”: “The word properly refers to the commencement of a thing, not its authorship, and denotes properly primacy in time, and primacy in rank, but not primacy in the sense of causing anything to exist. . . . The word is not, therefore, found in the sense of authorship, as denoting that one is the beginning of anything in the sense that he caused it to have an existence.

There are two equivalent verses to Revelation 3:14, these are Colossians 1:15 and Proverbs 8:22. We will look into how those translations ,that make the change,translate them, you will notice that are inconsistent, and so the change in Revelation 3:14 is based on theological bias rather than translation.

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

Revelation 3:14 (NRSV)

14 “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the origin of God’s creation:"

Colossians 1:15 (NRSV)

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;

Proverbs 8:22 (NRSV)

22 "The Lord created me at the beginning of his work,the first of his acts of long ago."

Christian Standard Bible (CSB)

Revelation 3:14 (CSB)

14 “Write to the angel of the church in Laodicea: Thus says the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the originator of God’s creation:

Colossians 1:15 (CSB)

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

(See notes below on the word "over"

Proverbs 8:22 (CSB)

22 “The Lord acquired me at the beginning of his creation, before his works of long ago.

New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

Revelation 3:14 (NABRE)

“To the angel of the church in Laodicea, write this: The Amen, the faithful and true witness, the source of God’s creation, says this:"

Colossians 1:15 (NABRE)

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."

Proverbs 8:22 (NABRE)

“The Lord begot me, the beginning of his works, the forerunner of his deeds of long ago."

New International Version (NIV)

Revelation 3:14 (NIV)

14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation."

Colossians 1:15 (NIV)

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Proverbs 8:22 (NIV)

22 “The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old"

Conclusion.

From BibleHub

588 [e] 746[e} 3588 [e] 2937 [e] 3588 [e] 2316 [e]

hē archē tēs ktiseōs tou Theou

ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ

the Beginning of the creation of God

Also the Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning of ar·kheʹ. Further the translators that make the change to "source", "origin" etc on all other 19 occasions that John uses the word "arche" , do not change .(the verses are listed below)

The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God’s creations, that he had a beginning. Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, many Bible translators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RSV, NET, and GNT, the one there speaking is said to be “created.” Note verses from those translations below.

Wisdom’s Part in Creation

22 "The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old." Proverbs 8:22 Good News Translation

"The LORD created me first of all, the first of his works, long ago." Proverbs 8:22 (NET Bible)

22 "The Lord created me as the beginning of his works, before his deeds of long ago."

Notes on translation.

The NIV have replace the firstborn"of"creation in Colossians 1:15 with "over" which is not in the original Greek scriptures , by doing so make the addition, is based of doctrine rather than translation. Whereas "of" appears to make Jesus part of the creation "over" sets him apart.

The twenty verses I have found "αρχη" pronounced "ar-khe" are as follows : John 1:1, 1:2, 2:11, 6:64, 8:25, 8:44, 15:27. 16:4. 1 John 1:1, 2:7, 2:13, 2:14, 2:24,3:8, 3:11,. 2 John 1:5,1:6. Revelation 3:14, 21:6 and 22:13.

| improve this answer | |
2

In the Tanakh, it's recorded that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).Creatures have their assigned abode, heaven for the angels while earth for humans and animals (Colossians 1:16). If , as John 1:1 says, the Word was in the beginning, then, he cannot be a creature because he did not have an abode because the heavens and the earth were not yet made.Where was the Word when he was created? He was with God to begin creation itself! (John 1:2-3).That's why he was called " The Beginning of the Creation of God" (Revelation 3:14)

ἀρχὴν (archen) as "source"

The English translation the beginning of the creation of God[1] could literally denote the following:

1) The first of God's creation.

2) The source of God's creation.

Why is this so? It is because the English word "beginning" means 'first' as well as 'source.'[2]

We are assured that we cannot define beginning in Rev. 3:14 as first but only as source.

The reason is that Christ existed in the beginning (Greek: EN ARCHE) with God based on Jn. 1:2 and Jn 1:1. is clear that he existed in the beginning as God [the Word] who existed with God [the Father].

The One who existed in the beginning with God cannot be the beginning ( in the sense of first) of God's creation. ~ John 1:2

The reason is that the One who existed in the beginning with God was the One through whom God created everything ( By Him all things came into existence -John 1:3).God the Father created through God the Son who is the one Lord - one Jehovah (Greek: EIS KYRIOS) of the Shema ( ...one Lord,Jesus Christ,through whom are all things...1 Corinthians 8:6[Deuteronomy 6:4LXX]).

The Greek word ARCHE has lots of definition like "first",'source","origin","prior", "original","ruler"etc.[3]

The Greek word ἀρχή (arche) can be translated in English as “source/origin.” (Revelation 3:14 NRSV, HCSB,ISV, GWT, NAB, GNT, NRS).

In Amos 6:1, the Hebrew word רֵאשִׁית resheit ( from rosh – head or first) was translated into the Greek Septuagint as “root/source."

God is called the ἀρχή (beginning = source/origin) of all creation in both OT ( Isaiah 41:4; Isaiah 43:10; Isaiah 44:6) and the NT (Revelation 1:8, 21:6).

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines arche in Revelation 3:14 as “that by which anything begins to be, the origin, active cause.” Ardnt and Gingrich say that arche here means “the first cause.”

The New World Translation is in error at Rev. 3:14, where it makes the exalted Christ refer to himself as “the beginning of the creation by God.” The Greek text of this verse (ἡ αρχη της κτισεως του θεου) is far from saying that Christ was created by God, for the genitive case, του θεου, means “of God” and not “by God” (which would require the preposition ὑπο). Actually the word αρχη, translated “beginning,” carries with it the Pauline idea expressed in Col. 1:15-18, and signifies that Christ is the origin, or primary source, of God’s creation (compare also John 1:3, “Apart from him not even one thing came into existence."

ἀρχή (arche) as "ruler"

In Biblical Greek, we find out that the meaning "rule/authority" of the Greek word ἀρχή (arche) is used in Luke 20:20 and Colossians 1:18 without any shadow of doubt:

Καὶ παρατηρήσαντες ἀπέστειλαν ἐνκαθέτους ὑποκρινομένους ἑαυτοὺς δικαίους εἶναι, ἵνα ἐπιλάβωνται αὐτοῦ λόγου, ὥστε παραδοῦναι αὐτὸν τῇ ἀρχῇ καὶ τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τοῦ ἡγεμόνος.Luke 20:20 [4]

Καὶ τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν Λαοδικίᾳ ἐκκλησίας γράψον Τάδε λέγει ὁ Ἀμήν, ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστὸς καὶ ὁ ἀληθινός, ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ,Revelation 3:14 [5]

So they watched Him, and sent spies who pretended to be righteous, in order that they might catch Him in some statement, so that they could deliver Him to the rule and the authority of the governor.Luke 20:20 NASB

"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation.Revelation 3:14 (NIV)

The immediate context of Colossians 1:18 shows that ARCHE, PROTOTOKOS and PROTEUON have the same sense of authority and rule.

καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώματος, τῆς ἐκκλησίας· ὅς ἐστιν (ἡ) ἀρχή, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων,Colossians 1:18

The Greek word ἀρχή (arche) means "primacy in rank" (Albert Barnes, Thayer).Hence, the translation "ruler",(NIV,CEB,CJB,NLT,TNIV),"head" (BBE,WEB) and "chief" (YLT) in Revelation 3:14.

The Greek word ἀρχὴν (archen) also means "domain" (Jude 1:6) and "rule" (1 Corinthians 15:24).In Proverbs 8:22 (LXX),it literally reads: " The LORD created me the head (ἀρχὴv - archen) of his ways (works)..." This shows that Christ was not created into existence but rather, he was appointed a ruler over all things. Colossians 1:15,18 also expresses the same theme which Proverbs 8:22 and Revelation 3:14 share.

NOTE

God the Son is the actual agent as well as the instrumental agent of all things just as God the Father is the actual agent and the instrumental agent of all things (Romans 11:36;Colossians 1:16).The Son spoke the creation into existence both the old ( Genesis 1, Hebrews 1:2, 10, 11:3) and the new (John 5:25).

The Son was the "source" (arche) of the creation of God [Revelation 3:14] in the sense that he was the "actual agent" of creation, that is, the Father created all things by the direct agency of the Son (" Apart from Him not one thing came into existence", John 1:3).This is also explicit in 1 Corinthians 8:6 ( all things " out of" (ek) the Father and all things " by means of, through" (di) the Son.The God who spoke creation into existence was actually the Son himself. The Son spoke creation into existence by his powerful word (rhema) ~ Genesis 1:1, Hebrews 1:2, 10, 11:3 In fact, the Son did not only create the old creation, he also will create the new one! ( John 5:25).

REFERENCE(S):

[1]ESV, NASB,KJV,ASV

[2]The Free Dictionary

[3]Arche (Wikipedia), Arche (Merriam-Webster) and Arche (Bible Study Tools)

[4]Luke 20:20 (Bible Hub)

[5]Revelation 3:14 (Bible Hub)

| improve this answer | |
  • You are arguing from the presumption that John 1:1-3 is speaking of Jesus who is not mentioned in those verses. What is mentioned is "the utterance of God." So on both counts you are not doing exegesis but rather eisegesis (pronounced "I-See-Jesus"). – Ruminator Sep 10 '17 at 20:15
  • The "Free Dictionary" is not a Koine dictionary! Your burden is to show it in Koine usage, not English usage. Also, 1 Cor 8:6 says the opposite of him being the source. It says of course the the ONE GOD is the Father and that all things come to the believer through Jesus (that God made to be Lord because of his obedience to God)! You are not expounding scripture, you are trying to convince yourself of your dogma. – Ruminator Sep 13 '17 at 14:51
2

The Greek word translated "beginning" here is the word "arche." Arche certainly can mean "beginning" as in "the first in series,"1 which is how the Jehovah's Witness understands it here. But it can also mean "beginning" in the sense of the "origin" or "source" of a thing,2 or can carry the sense of "the one with whom a process begins."3 It even can mean "ruler" or "authority,"4 from which we get words like "archbishop", "archangel", or "arch enemy." In Greek philosophy, the "arche" was the eternal absolute from which all created things are derived,5 from which we get words like "archetype". So it is not enough merely to note that Jesus IS the "beginning of the creation of God." We have to ask in what sense is Jesus the "arche" of creation? How is He using the word here?

In the immediate context of the verse, Jesus is addressing the church at Laodicea. He is not merely stating random facts about Himself but is reinforcing the authority of His words. The term "amen" is a strong affirmation of the truthfulness of a statement.6 When Jesus calls Himself "the amen," He is saying that His own identity is the ultimate affirmation of truth. Who He is proves the truthfulness of what He says. This is reinforced by the second title He gives Himself here, "the faithful and true witness." The context is emphasizing Jesus' authority and identity as the arbiter of truth. When He gives the third title, that He is the "arche" of creation, it seems highly unlikely that the sense intended here is merely "God made me before He made you. I come first on a timeline." If Jesus is the source of everything that is or the ruler of everything that is, that furthers His point. Stating that He is one of the things that God created and comes first in chronological order doesn't do anything to establish His authority or the truthfulness of His testimony. The statement would simply be out of place. Translators have long realized this, as a brief survey below helps illustrate.

  • The 1599 Geneva Bible translates it "beginning of the creatures of God." The translators add an explanatory note to clarify the sense they mean: "Of whom all things that are made have their beginning."

  • The NASB translates it "the beginning of the creation of God," also clarifying in a footnote: "I.e. Origin or Source"

  • HCSB, NET, and the Messianic Jewish "Tree of Life Version" all render it - "the originator of God's creation"
  • The NRSV similarly translates it - "the Origin of God's creation"
  • The NIV renders it - "the Ruler of God's creation"
  • The Young's Literal Translation similarly translates - "the Chief of the creation of God"
  • The Living Bible offers the interpretation - "the primeval source of God's creation."

References

  1. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature: Third Edition [BDAG] (University of Chicago Press, 2000) 137
  2. ibid, 138
  3. ibid, 138
  4. ibid, 138
  5. for a very brief summary of Greek philosophical theories as to the nature of this "arche" as "primary entity," see Aristotle's Metaphysics, Book I, section 983b
  6. BDAG, 53
| improve this answer | |
1

Yes, that would seem to be the case according to:-

YLT Colossians 1:15 "He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation..."

G4416 πρωτοτόκος prōtotokos Thayer Definition: 1) the firstborn 1a) of man or beast 1b) of Christ, the first born of all creation Part of Speech: adjective A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4413 and the alternate of G5088

| improve this answer | |
1

The First and Last
Revelation is the revelation of Jesus Christ:

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants… (1:1) [ESV]

Throughout, Jesus is revealed in various ways, often by a description or a title. At the beginning John experiences such a revelation:

When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades. (1:17-18)

Jesus is the first and the last: the living one. He died and is alive forevermore, and so forth. After the introduction, Jesus instructs John to record 7 messages to be delivered to 7 churches. Each message begins by Jesus revealing something of Himself:

Who           Title
John:         I am the first and the last; the living one. I died and am alive
              forevermore. I have the keys of death and Hades.
Ephesus:      Him who holds the seven stars in His right hand, and walks among the 
              golden lampstands  
Smyrna:       The first and the last, who died and came to life
Pergamus:     Him who has the sharp two-edge sword
Thyatira:     The Son of God, who has eyes like a flame, and whose feet are like
              burnished bronze
Sardis:       Him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars
Philadelphia: The Holy One, the True One, who has the key of David, who opens 
              doors no one will shut, and who shuts doors no one opens  
Laodicea:     The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness,
              the beginning of God's creation

Each revelation adds to make a more complete picture, or in the case of the church at Smyrna, reinforces an earlier revelation. No one revelation is by itself complete, and, since all revelations are about Jesus, they all must be in agreement, and in particular, no single revelation can be understood to contradict another given elsewhere.

Therefore, the beginning of God's creation (ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ) must be consistent with all Jesus reveals of Himself, and in particular, He is the first and the last.

The Meaning of "Beginning" - ἀρχή

“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation. (3:14)

καὶ τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ ἐκκλησίας γράψον τάδε λέγει ὁ ἀμήν ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινός ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ

There are five Biblical uses of the word ἀρχὴ:

  • [a] beginning, origin
  • [b] the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
  • [c] that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
  • [d] the extremity of a thing
  • [e] the first place, principality, rule, magistracy

Of these five, "a" and "d" are obviously incompatible with the revelation Jesus is the first and the last. Jesus cannot be the first and last thing created. This is apparent even within Revelation which states there is still a new heaven, a new earth, and a new Jerusalem to come (cf. Revelation 22:1-2). Also, Jesus cannot be the extremities of God's creation.

Jesus could be considered "the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader" except, He is not the last:

When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:28)

For the same reason Jesus who is the current ruler, cannot be the last.

Thus, the only meaning of ἀρχὴ which is consistent with the revelation of Jesus Christ is "that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause." In addition, this meaning is consistent with what the New Testament says about Jesus:

All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made (John 1:3)

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:15-17)

but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (Hebrews 1:2-3)

It is how the first worship scene in Revelation ends:

“Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.” (Revelation 4:11)

Finally, Hebrews specifically identifies the Son as both Creator and One who will recreate:

8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” 10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; 11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, 12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” (Hebrews 1)

The Reward for the Laodiceans
The reward offered to the Laodiceans serves as added confirmation of how ἀρχή should be understood. Just as each church hears a specific revelation, each hears of a specific reward to the one who overcomes. The Laodiceans are promised to sit with Jesus on His throne:

The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. (3:21)

The Laodicean who overcomes joins His arche. This specific revelation and reward are in complete harmony with the letter to the Hebrews which not only describes Jesus as the Creator and the One who recreates, but sits on a throne given to Him by God, His Father. In addition, as do the other revelations, this adds to what is revealed about Jesus. In this case His authority is so encompassing, He is able to share it with those from Laodicea who overcome.

Conclusion
Revelation 3:14 is not saying Jesus was created. It is saying Jesus is the source of the first and the last creation.

| improve this answer | |
  • I don't see the Genesis 1 "creation" being in view at all. We are talking about a new "regime". 2 Cor 5:16 "So that we henceforth have known no one according to the flesh, and even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him no more; 17so that if any one [is] in Christ — [he is] a new creature [regime, founding]; the old things did pass away, lo, become new have the all things." Jesus is the "author and finisher of the faith". He is Paul's "new man[kind]" in Eph 2 and "the second Adam" . – Ruminator Sep 13 '17 at 18:27
  • 1
    In your first paragraph you obscure the true meaning of the very first verse by cutting it short. It isn't a revelation about Jesus Christ but a revelation from God through Jesus to the assemblies. God revealed this stuff to Jesus about "what was soon to come to pass". Restore those removed words to your citation and that becomes clear. – Ruminator Sep 14 '17 at 20:19
  • 1
    Why do you conflate Col 1:16 with Col 2:15 which is clearly about God's activity, not about his Christ's: "...12having been buried with him [Jesus] in baptism, in which also you were raised with him [Jesus] through the faith of the working of God, the One [God] having raised him [Jesus] out from the dead.....". It was God who nails and triumphs over the rulers of this world, not over the rulers of the kingdom of his son. Strike two. This twisting seems deliberate; is it? Or are you just that careless? – Ruminator Sep 14 '17 at 20:30
  • 1
    Your dogma of "Jesus was always ruler" is refuted all across the scriptures including Psalm 2, Psalm 110, Acts 2:33-36 and of course Daniel, Revelation, etc. Nor is his reign permanent as clearly spelled out in 1 Cor 15, when Jesus becomes just another saint so that God can be all in all. – Ruminator Sep 14 '17 at 20:56
  • 1
    "Something which is both the first and last work of creation is the sole work God accomplished. This means Jesus was the only thing God created and everything else was created by Jesus." Umm... You quoted from Colossians 1:26 in your very answer! And see: "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3). There are also many others. So yes, in a sense, this is true, because God created everything through Christ. It does not make Christ into a demiurge. – Andrew Oct 6 '17 at 4:43
0

Christ is both Not-created AND created.

Using methods of sensus plenior:

Jesus is the light

Jn 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 ¶ And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Jn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

He is self-existent

1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The word 'Elohim' for 'God' has a pun 'alo khoom' meaning 'not dark'. The 'not dark' or 'the light' existed before creation hidden in God.

And he is created

Ge 1:3 ¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Jhn 1:14 And the Word (which is the life and light) was made flesh, and dwelt among us...

Contradictions are riddles In sensus plenior, contradictions speak of different aspects of the same truth. they are riddles. Jesus is the Only begotten Son AND the Unbegotten Only Son.

Christ as the Light represents the Holiness of God:

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

Since Holiness expresses a separateness, and the Godhead was unified in Love, Holiness waited for creation to be expressed. Immediately after the heavens and the earth were created God declared, "Let there be Light" and His holiness was made manifest.

Therefore we can say that Christ was created, that he is the firstfruits of creation [1] without fear of treading on his divinity.

He is both the Creator and a created man. That is the essence of incarnation.

In the context of scripture arche shuold be translated 'origin'.

[1] 1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.

| improve this answer | |
  • Okay no, nowhere does it say that Christ was not created. Also, that all of creation was created through Christ, as is indeed made plain by a number of passages, does not necessitate that Christ could not also have been created. The only riddle here for some is what is actually meant by God "creating" Christ. – Andrew Oct 6 '17 at 4:34
  • Are you saying that the Son was created, or that the Son is not Christ? – Bob Jones Oct 31 '17 at 0:15
  • Specifically, as I know some would accuse me of having a Jehovah's Witness position here which I do not - my position is not heresy - I believe the scriptures are saying in Revelation 3:14 and Colossians 1 that the manifestation of Christ was created as a new member of the deity, that God essentially replicated Himself and then created and sustains all of creation through that replication. This is really no different than saying Christ was begotten in human form except that we're no longer talking of flesh. – Andrew Oct 31 '17 at 16:02
  • @Andrew It is a novel idea. Heresy just means someone else doesn't like it. What you are proposing is a God who changed in essential nature by duplication. If God is the only thing that existed, and there was no container larger than God, where did he put his duplicate? – Bob Jones Nov 25 '17 at 0:37
  • No, I disagree on heresy: there are absolutely things that can be taught that will lead one away from genuine faith in Christ, towards damnation, even things you might at first think are not important. For instance, if Christ did not shed any actual human blood, that's heresy: Hebrews 9:22. – Andrew Nov 25 '17 at 4:01
0

Jesus Christ in Rev. 1:8 is

"the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End”, [...] “who is and who was and who is to come, the Allmighty*”

Possible meanings of the word Arche attested in ancient texts include Sovereignty, Authority, Realm, Command

*Pantokrator comes from kratos = power and panta = everything, all. Some translations use 'All-powerfull' but 'ruler of all / everything' can be easily supported.

See the discussion here: What does "pantokrator" mean?

Ιn some way, κτίσις when it isn't about the process of creating but the result is roughly the same with 'everything' (that has been created).

| improve this answer | |
  • @ApostolosPapaoimitriu Revelation 1:8 was added by Trinitarians and is only kept in modern translations because, well, Trinitarians like it even though it is fake. -1 – Ruminator Sep 12 '17 at 4:28
  • Well, it exists in codex Sinaiticus but I only checked it now. But intead of downvoting you can form an argument the next time. – Apóstolos Papaðimitríu Sep 12 '17 at 7:31
  • In the text Jesus Christ is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, he who was, he who is and he who is to come. Trinitarians or non-trinitarians may have added or removed parts but the burden of proof falls on the person who makes the claim. – Apóstolos Papaðimitríu Sep 12 '17 at 9:57
  • @Ruminator First and last is accepted in Revelation 1:17, 2:8, and 22:13. Your rejection of this fact is inconsistent with the realty it is how the book begins and ends and how it is used in one of the two churches which Jesus finds no fault. You cannot reject this fact because you claim one was added by Trinitarians. Your theory about regime is completely inconsistent with the fact Jesus is the first and the last. IOW He is the only one. – Revelation Lad Sep 13 '17 at 15:23
  • Okay, sorry, the verse is there but it, along with many other verses in Revelation has been modified by the 1514AD Textus Receptus: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… The words "the beginning and the end" were added and "God" was removed to make it appear it speaks of the messiah: biblicalunitarian.com/verses/revelation-1-8 – Ruminator Sep 13 '17 at 15:44
0

Jesus is not asserting that he was the first thing created by God (nor denying it) because he is not talking about Genesis 1 or before but rather about the new creation/regime aka "the kingdom of God's beloved son":

ESV Col 1: 12giving thanks unto the Father, who made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light; 13who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love; 14in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins: 15who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation [κτίσεως]; 16for in him were all things created [ἐκτίσθη], in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created [ἐκτίσθη] through him, and unto him; 17and he is before all things, and in him all things consist. 18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell; 20and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say, whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens.

In the Greek word as well as in Hebrew thought, "first" denotes all others being subsequent but also, "first" suggests "more important":

English Standard Version John 1:15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”)

Note: My analysis of John 1:15 is dependent on the translation being correct which I have some reservations about. It might be saying "He that was previously my follower ranks higher than I because he was more important than I". I have a hard time with simply existing longer makes you more important. But first and ranking higher are associated in the Greek language.

We see in Revelation and in Colossians that Jesus is "the firstborn from the dead". This makes him the first of the new regime.

I use the word "regime" rather than "creation" because we are talking of a "kingdom", with "thrones" and "dominions" (Col 1:15-18)

So understanding the sense of "first of the whole regime" we see he is both first (because he was the firstborn from the dead) and he is first in order of rule (because he established the thrones and dominions of the whole regime) and first in order of importance because all things were established by God by means of him.

But he is "the first AND the last" of the regime:

NASB 1 Cor 15: 20But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, 24then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

NOTES:

I have asserted that the word the English translators translate as "creation" should be rendered "regime". Below is the entry in BDAG to support that claim:

κτίσις, εως, ἡ (s. prec. and two next entries; Pind.+). ① act of creation, creation ... ② the result of a creative act, that which is created (EpArist 136; 139; TestReub 2:9). ⓐ of individual things or beings created, creature ... ⓑ the sum total of everything created, creation, world ... ③ system of established authority that is the result of some founding action, governance system, authority system. Corresponding to 1, κτίσις is also the act by which an authoritative or governmental body is created (ins in CB I/2, 468 no. 305 [I A.D.]: founding of the Gerousia [Senate]. Somewhat comparable, of the founding of a city: Scymnus Chius vs. 89 κτίσεις πόλεων). But then, in accordance with 2, it is prob. also the result of the act, the institution or authority itself 1 Pt 2:13 (Diod S 11, 60, 2 has κτίστης as the title of a high official. Cp. νομοθεσία in both meanings: 1. lawgiving, legislation; 2. the result of an action, i.e. law.) To a Hellene a well-ordered society was primary (s. Aristot., Pol. 1, 1, 1, 1252). It was understood that the function of government was to maintain such a society, and the moral objective described in vs. 14 is in keeping with this goal.—BBrinkman, ‘Creation’ and ‘Creature’ I, Bijdragen (Nijmegen) 18, ’57, 129–39, also 359–74; GLampe, The NT Doctrine of κτίσις, SJT 17, ’64, 449–62.—DELG s.v. κτίζω. M-M. TW. Sv.

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., pp. 572–573). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

| improve this answer | |
  • Jesus is first and last. So if Jesus is the first from the dead, then He is also the last from the dead. Your analysis removes the hope of eternal life. – Revelation Lad Sep 13 '17 at 15:26
  • First and last reveals an exclusive element to the nature of Jesus Christ. Any meaning of arche which makes Jesus an entity or a regime also makes Him the exclusive entity in that regime. IOW the regime is devoid of any thing other than Jesus. There is no hope for any human to join in this regime unless Jesus is later destroyed and recreated as the last thing in this new regime. A meaning arche of principality or rule is the only one which is consistent with Jesus also being the first and the last. – Revelation Lad Sep 13 '17 at 17:16
  • No if, as you attempt, to place a meaning of a being or an entity on the word, you must be consistent and make Him the only entity. The meaning you so adamantly oppose of ruler or principality is the only one which fits. Your position is Jesus is second (to God) and then next to last (to God). I believe you are ignoring the plain meaning of first and last. – Revelation Lad Sep 13 '17 at 18:06
  • 1
    Which part do you not understand. – Sola Gratia Oct 6 '17 at 14:42
  • 1
    That's why I said, "If we wanted to continue, it's telling me to continue in a chat. But briefly..." Again, you are inventing creeds that's aren't mentioned from thin air. I'm talking about Scripture here only. "Since "the Word" and "the Lord of Glory" died, and "the First and the Last..[died]", it is referring to a Person of Whom are predicated things not strictly applicable to his Divine Nature". You seem overly butthurt about something else. It can't surely be about simple disagreement. – Sola Gratia Oct 6 '17 at 15:18
0

In view of the entire biblical corpus, the most suitable translation of ἀρχή would be “beginning.” However, this does not require Jesus Christ to be understood as a creature. One definition of the English word “beginning” is “origin, source.”1

OED, “beginning,” n., 3, a

The same definition applies to the Greek word ἀρχή.2

ἀρχή, LSJ, p. 252

Concerning the idea of the “beginning of creation,” Philo, a contemporary of Paul and Jesus in the 1st century A.D., wrote the following,3

113 And let a tower be built in this city as a citadel, to be a strong palace for the tyrant vice, whose feet shall walk upon the earth, and its head shall, through pride, be raised to such a height as to reach even to heaven; 114 for, in good truth, it rests not only upon human sins, but it also hastens forward as far as heaven, pushing up its words of impiety and ungodliness, since it either speaks of God so as to assert that he has no existence, or that, though he exists, he has no providence, or to affirm that the world had no beginning of creation, or that, admitting that it has been created, it is borne on by unsteady causes, just as chance may direct, at one time wrongly, at another time in an irreproachable manner, just as often happens in the case of chariots or ships.

ΡΛΒʹ “πύργος” δʼ ὡς ἂν ἀκρόπολις κατεσκευάσθω τῇ τυράννῳ κακίᾳ βασίλειον ὀχυρώτατον, ἦς οἱ μὲν πόδες ἐπὶ γῆς βαινέτωσαν, ἡ δὲ κεφαλὴ πρὸς οὐρανὸν φθανέτω τοσοῦτον ὑπὸ μεγαλαυχίας ὕψος ἐπιβᾶσα ΡΛΓʹ τῷ γὰρ ὄντι οὐ μόνον ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρωπείων ἀδικημάτων ἵσταται, μετατρέχει δὲ καὶ τὰ ὀλύμπια τοὺς ἀσεβείας καὶ ἀθεότητος λόγους προτείνουσα, ἐπειδὰν ἢ ὡς οὐκ ἔστι τὸ θεῖον διεξίῃ, ἢ ὡς ὂν οὐ προνοεῖ, ἢ ὡς ὁ κόσμος οὔποτε γενέσεως ἔλαβεν ἀρχήν, ἢ ὡς γενόμενος ἀστάτοις αἰτίαις ὡς ἂν τύχῃ φέρεται, ποτὲ μὲν πλημμελῶς, ποτὲ δὲ οὐχ ὑπαιτίως, καθάπερ ἐπὶ πλοίων καὶ τεθρίππων εἴωθε γίνεσθαι·

Philo writes about how pride speaks of God not existing, or if He does exist, lacking providence. He also mentions in that same line of thought that pride says the world has no “beginning of creation” (γενέσεως...ἀρχήν).4 That is, pride asserts that God did not create the world, but rather, the world always existed. Here, then, we see how ἀρχή is used in the sense of “source” or “origin” of the creation, not as part of creation itself. Furthermore, the ἀρχή or “beginning” of creation in Philo’s passage is God.

Since Jesus Christ is “the Word of God,”5 and “all things were created by means of [the Word], and not even one thing that was made was made without [the Word],”6 and he is “the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning (ἀρχή) and the end,”7 then the Word is also the “beginning” (origin) of the creation, which was made in him, by means of him, and for him.8


Footnotes

1 Oxford English Dictionary, “beginning,” (n.), 3., a.
2 LSJ, p. 252
3 “On the Confusion of Tongues” (De Confusione Linguarum), Cohn, p. 250, §113–114; Yonge, p. 24
4 Philo uses the genitive declension of γένεσις rather than κτίσις used by the author of Revelation. However, both words share the same meaning. Thayer on κτίσις (p. 363): “collectively, the sum or aggregate of created things.” LSJ on γένεσις (p. 254): “concrete, creation, i.e. all created things.” Therefore, ἀρχή γενέσεως in Philo and ἀρχὴ κτίσεως in Revelation are equivalent.
5 Rev. 19:13
6 John 1:3
7 Rev. 22:13 cf. Rev. 22:12 which mentions the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.
8 Col. 1:16

References

Liddell, Henry George; Scott, Robert; et al. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1940.

Oxford English Dictionary.

Philo of Alexandria. Philonis Alexandrini Opera Quae Supersunt. Ed. Cohn, Leopold; Wendland, Paulus. Vol. 2. Berlin: Reimeri, 1897.

Philo of Alexandria. The Works of Philo Judæus. Trans. Yonge, Charles Duke. Vol. 2. London: Bohn, 1854.

Wilke, Christian Gottlob. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti. Trans. Thayer, Joseph Henry. Ed. Grimm, Carl Ludwig Wilibald. Rev. ed. New York: American Book, 1889.

| improve this answer | |
-1

short comment:

In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.

Jesus was not created but thro' Him all thing came, He was the word and speaking that Word light of Christ was revealed.

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever. Amen.Romans 11:36

Thro' Him all things came to existence, He is The firstborn? Yes, because we were not sons of God so to be sons of God the origin must be there. so, for us to be the sun of God we must be born again, to creation a life of God , He creation life inside us or let it born inside us ( our Soul ). without the first born there can never be another, so his came to be bore by Marry and became the first born and the first son of God who rose from the death.

my English is not so much good , so i apologize.

| improve this answer | |
  • I'm very grateful for your participation here. We're a little different from a forum, so do take the site tour if you haven't already. Answers are expected to have informed argument, cite evidence (primary and secondary), and not simply offer speculation. You may want to see What are we looking for in answers?. – Paul Vargas May 22 '15 at 17:57
  • If you know your English isn't so good, then don't make it even harder to read by putting it bad abbreviations like thro'! – curiousdannii May 27 '15 at 9:30
  • @curiousdannii Did you intend for your comment to communicate that no one will cut him/her any slack for their English perfection, because it appears s\he took it to heart. Kudos. – Ruminator Sep 10 '17 at 20:18
  • @Valuia I down voted your comment, not because your English wasn't perfect but because you argued from the dogma of Trinity rather than from the text and because it appears you are gone and I can't interact to improve the post. – Ruminator Sep 10 '17 at 20:20
-1

The 1st Day of Creation! (Genesis 1:3-5)

If "The Beginning of Creation" is not understood and REALized, then what of that which follows?

And, "In the beginning Our FATHER and GOD created The Heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And The SPIRIT that IS Our FATHER and GOD moved upon the face of the waters." (Genesis 1:1-2, John 4:24)

And it needs be REALized that Genesis 1:1-2 bore witness unto that which was to follow, for The Heavens were not Created until the 2nd Day of Creation. {Genesis 1:6-8} .......

And the earth was not Created until the 3rd Day!(Genesis 1:9-13)

And The 1st Day of Creation Our FATHER and GOD spoke HIS Word(The TRUTH, Logos) into being!

For "ELOHIM said "Let There Be Light", and there was Light"....... (Genesis 1:3)

And it needs be REALized that The 'Light' created The 1st Day was not the natural light of the sun, moon or stars, for they were not created until The 4th Day. (Genesis 1:14-19)

"The Light", "The Beginning of The Creation of Our FATHER and GOD"! (Genesis 1:3, Revelations 3:14)

And That 1st Day 'Light(GOD's Word{Logos})' was to be, and IS Eternal! (Revelations 19:13)

So "The Light" Shines and Hope IS Alive! In spite of the blackness of darkness that is of this evil world and/or religion's way(except The Active Faith as revealed in James 1:27) in this day and age! (John 3:19; 12:46; 7:7, I John 2:15-17; 5:19, James 1:27; 4:4)

"And Our FATHER and GOD saw The Light, that it was good! So HE divided The Light from the darkness, and HE called The Light Day, and the darkness HE called night. And the evening(darkness) and The Morning(Light) were The 1st Day." (Genesis 1:4-5)

And even though this evil world begins and ends it's day in darkness, it needs be REALized that the 1st Day of Creation ended in "The Light(GOD's Word)" which overcomes the darkness! (John 7:7, I John 2:15-17; 5:19, James 4:4)

ALL Thanks and Praise Be Unto Our FATHER(TRUTH, SPIRIT, CREATOR, GOD, LORD, MASTER, LIGHT, LOVE, LIFE,,,, ALL in ALL that which IS Truly GOOD)! (John 20:17; 14:28, Mark 10:18)

Once again: It is needful for a soul to REALize that The 'Light' created The 1st Day was not the natural light of the sun, moon or stars! For they were not created until the 4th Day....... (Genesis 1:14-19)

And Thankfully the Apostle Paul saw The 1st Day "Light" on the road to Damascus:

"At midday, Oh king, I saw in the way A Light from Heaven, which was ABOVE THE BRIGHTNESS OF THE SUN, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.

And when we had all fallen to the earth, i heard A Voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.

And I said, Who are you, Master? And The Messiah said, I am Yahowshuwa(for He spoke in the Hebrew tongue) Whom you are persecuting"! (Acts 26:13-15)

The Messiah, "The Light of the world"! (John 8:12)

Thankfully, Our FATHER and GOD spoke HIS Word, "Let there be Light" and HIS Word WAS! And HIS Word WAS and IS "The Light which enlightens every man born into the world"....... Such was "the Glory The Messiah had with Our FATHER and GOD before the world began"! (John 1:9; 17:5, Revelations 19:13)

And such is in perfect harmony with the testimony recorded in John 1:1-5;

"In The Beginning was The Word, and The Word was with GOD, and The Word was GOD"!

The same(The Light) was in The Beginning(The 1st Day of Creation) with GOD.

All things were made by Him, and without Him(The Light that was manifest as The Messiah, "The Beginning of The Creation of Our FATHER and GOD") was not any thing made that was made! (The mystery, which from The Beginning of the world has been hid in GOD, WHO Created All Things By The Messiah! {Ephesians 3:9})

In Him(The Messiah) was Life, and The Life was The Light of men.

And The Light(The Messiah) shinned midst the darkness! And the darkness comprehended it not." (John 1:1-5)

Our FATHER and GOD, HE WHO IS LIGHT, Begot Light....... (I John 1:5)

LIKE Begot Like.......

The Messiah, "The Light(GOD's Word) of the world"....... (John 8:12; 9:5, Revelations 19:13)

The Messiah, "The Beginning of The Creation of Our FATHER(CREATOR) and GOD(SPIRIT)"....... (Revelations 1:1, 3:14)

The Messiah, "The Firstborn of ALL Creation"! (Colossians 1:15 rightly translated)

The Messiah, "The Only Begotten Son of The Living GOD" both IN SPIRIT as "The Light" of Genesis 1:3 and physically in "the likeness of sinful flesh"....... (Matthew 16:16, John 3:16, Romans 8:3)

And Our FATHER, HE "created all things by(of, in, and through The Light that is) The Messiah"! (Ephesians 3:9)

"The Messiah, "The True Light which enlightens every man born"....... (John 1:9)

And once again: TRUTH IS! Apart from "The Light", The Life can not be REALized midst the blackness of darkness that is of this evil world and/or religion's way(except it be The Active Faith as revealed in James 1:27) in this day and age! (John 12:46; 7:7, I John 2:15-17; 5:19, James 1:27; 4:4)

"Let There Be Light!" (Genesis 1:3)

The 1st Day of Creation! (Genesis 1:5)

The Messiah, "The Beginning of The Creation of Our FATHER and GOD"! (Revelations 1:1, 3:14)

The Messiah, "The Firstborn of ALL Creation"! (Colossians 1:15)

Once again: If "The Beginning" is not understood and REALized, than what of that which follows?

And what of the end?

Simply, if the beginning is not understood and REALized then 'con'fusion would reign!

And today 'con'fusion does reign midst the multitudes of religions(except it be The Active Faith as revealed in James 1:27), all of which are of this evil world and it's god "the father of lies"! For apart from "The Light" there is only darkness, "the blind leading the blind"....... (John 7:7; 8:44, Genesis 1:3, Matthew 24:23; 15:14)

So it is that history has revealed, and continues to reveal, that multiplied BILLIONS have been killed or enslaved(in physical chains at times, yet primarily in the chains of "strong delusion" that are the commandments and doctrines of men) in the name of the god(s) of this, or that religion! (II Thessalonians 2:10-13)

Proving the fruit of death and enslavement are bore of religion's way, for life is but a pawn in the wicked game they play!

Yet because of pagan catholicism and her harlot christian daughters "The Way of TRUTH is evil spoken of"! (II Peter 2:1-3)

Come out from among them and be separate!" (II Corinthians 6:17, Revelations 18:4)

Not just pagan catholicism and her harlot christian daughters, but ALL that is of this evil world and/or religion's way(except it be The Active Faith as revealed in James 1:27) in this day and age!

And YES! Atheism is a religion as well, for atheists see their version of a god("I",ego,id,self,pride) each and every time they view their reflected "image"!

Yet Thankfully TRUTH IS! There IS ONE "Pure Religion and Undefiled"! (James 1:27)

And James 1:27 reveals an Active Faith, not a dead letter religion! "A Household of Faith" that IS "The Family of Our FATHER and GOD", "both in Heaven and ON EARTH"! (Galatians 6:10, Ephesians 2:19; 3:15)

Simply, ALL other religion IS "IMPURE and DEFILED"!

Yet TRUTH IS! religion was, and is yet needful for the natural man!

For natural men, liken unto those natural israelites of the old covenant, are but "disobedient and gainsaying(contradicting and opposing GOD) souls", "uncircumcised of heart and ears"! So it is they would rather have a man than "Our FATHER and GOD" speak(liken unto Moses) to, and rule(liken unto Saul) over them! (Romans 10:21, Acts 7:51, Exodus 20:19, l Samuel 8:4-21)

"Come out from among them and be separate!" (II Corinthians 6:17)

For the Faithful brethren of The Messiah will not create a religion, because the Faithful ARE Family! (Galatians 6:10, Ephesians 2:19)

Once again: The Family of Our FATHER and GOD, "of WHOM the whole Family in Heaven and ON EARTH is named"! (Ephesians 3:15)

And NEW "Jerusalem which IS above, IS free, and IS !NOW! The Mother of us all(Spiritually "Born Again" son's{naturally male or 'fe'male} of Our FATHER and GOD)"! (Galatians 4:26)

Thankfully "The Mother" of the "Born Again" brethren(naturally male or 'fe'male) of The Messiah is no longer "mother earth", earthly and of the flesh....... For "NEW Jerusalem" which IS Heavenly IS SPIRIT and of The TRUTH!

So it is the brethren of The Messiah choose to remain but "aliens and pilgrims while on the earth", for our "citizenship(Life) IS !NOW! in Heaven" and soon, and very soon, we will be taken Home, Home at last! (Hebrews 11:13, I Peter 2:11, Philippians 3:20, John 14:2-3)

Till then:

While breath(Spirit, air) is, Hope IS!

For TRUTH IS! and Miracles do happen.......

Hope IS! There would be those souls who experience The Miracle that IS "receiving a love of The TRUTH so that they might be saved"! For only then will they "see" "The Light" that IS The Messiah, "The Beginning of The Creation of Our FATHER an GOD"! (II Thessalonians 2:10-13, Genesis 1:3, Revelations 3:14)

And "The Light" will reveal The TRUTH bore witness of in Genesis 1:1 thru Genesis 2:3!

And "The Light" will also reveal that there are Two Unique Creation accounts bore witness of in Genesis Chapters 1 and 2.....

And those souls who have received "a love of The TRUTH so that they might be saved", and have seen "The Light" that IS The Messiah? They will begin to REALize, that liken unto The Messiah so also "i can do nothing of my own self"! (II Thessalonians 2:10-13, John 12:35, John 5:19,30; 8:28-29; 7:16; 12:49-50; 14:10,23-24; 17:8,14)

So it is we "cry unto Our FATHER and GOD day and night"...... (Luke 18:7, John 20:17) Evermore sounding and resounding a Declaration of Dependence:

FATHER Help!

HE DID! and HE does.......

So Thankfully, "The Peace that surpasses ALL understanding" IS! in spite of the dis-ease(no-peace) that is of this evil world and/or religion's way(except it be The Active Faith revealed in James 1:27) in this day and age! (Philippians 4:7, John 12:47; 7:7, I John 2:15-17; 5:19, James 1:27; 4:4)

ALL Thanks and Praise Be Unto Our FATHER(TRUTH, SPIRIT, CREATOR, GOD, LORD, MASTER, LIGHT, LOVE, LIFE,,,, ALL IN ALL That Which IS Truly GOOD)! (John 20:17; 14:28, Matthew 19:17)

HalleluYAH!

The testimony with links included is posted @ http://asimpleandspirituallife.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-1st-day-of-creation-genesis-11-5.html

| improve this answer | |
  • Thanks for answering, welcome to the community! Could you clear up your answer as it pertains to the question? Also, I recommend using bold or italics instead of typing things in all capital letters. Please look at formatting guidelines as well. Thanks! Hope you continue posting answers and asking questions on BHSE! – phil-al-sophy Dec 2 '18 at 2:58
-1

The best interpretation of scripture is scripture.

Having said that, John 1:1 and Micah 5:2 prove that the "beginning" in Revelation 3:14 is not to be interpreted as Jesus being created.

John 1:1 "In the beginning WAS the Word[Jesus] ...."

Micah 5:2 ".... whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.

There's no question that the "Word" spoken of in John 1:1 is in fact Jesus Christ.

| improve this answer | |
  • if it meant 'in the beginning was Jesus; - it would say so. It doesn't. It does not for a good reason - it would not be true. Unless of course you say it's true, then that's ok then. We can't just make stuff up and read what we think it SHOULD say. – user48152 Jun 16 at 12:44
-1

@OP: you have unwittingly (or purposely - but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) opened a debate on the Trinity. People immediately jump in with their own preconceived views. The Length of this thread is an indication. There are a few basic rules for making sense of this.

  • Reject eisegesis (= the insertion of personal opinion) where you find it.
  • Let Scripture interpret Scripture. Even where interpretation is twisted for commercial reasons, it is still possible to prove there is no trinity. (Watch me get flamed for my remarks).
  • Accept plain simple facts with the ring of truth. Ignore other opinions. Truth is not a majority opinion.
  • Der Übermensch pointed you in the correct direction. Yes, Jesus was created by God;
  • Yes, this undermines the Trinity fatally.
  • Yes, that's a plain simple fact in line with Col 2:15-16, Proverbs 8:22-30 and many other Scriptures.
  • Yes Jesus went on to undertake the rest of Creation,in line with John 1:1-3, Colossians 2:16 and other verses, which Trinitarians view as 'difficulties.'

At this point, a little reflection on how the Trinity got established is illuminating. There had been debate among Christianity (which by this stage had stopped using God's personal and distinguishing name Jehovah) about the subject and it was a bone of contention among Christians. Constantine(a pagan) wanted Christianity as the Official State Religion, but there had to be a Trinity there to satisfy all the other Pagans, notably sun-worship. So using his pagan Etruscan title of Pontifex Maximus, Constantine (a pagan) summoned the bishops to Nicea to settle this. He presided or chaired the debate. These Christians were an awkward lot - worried about truth of all things and there were long debates between Athanasius & Arius. At some point, Constantine banished Arius to Bythinia. The debate concluded within 2 days, with Constantine proposing the exact form of words in the final document. Only 2 bishops were brave enough not to sign. They were banished also to Bythinia.Athanasius was excommunicated in 360 A.D. for apostasy under an emperor with different opinions.

Finally, if you are seeking truth, do not neglect prayer in looking at what the Scriptures say. In line with verses like Titus 3:9 I won't be posting again.

| improve this answer | |
  • Welcome to BH community. "Trinity" is one of the Christian doctrines has elements of mystery to "human mind"-" the Deity of Three & Three-in-Oneness, not to mention the history of the formulation. No human language and all the languages together will never be sufficient. However, your point #4-7, seem to me, to indicate -"Jesus" is "created", and if so, is in contrary even to your final words, especially the first part - "prayer and Scripture." My question to you is: have you earnestly did what you said? – Sam Jun 17 at 20:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy