Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat 171 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    The Greek dictionary in my hand says:

    ἀρχή, ής, ή (ἄρχω) beginning of something; start. - 1. Concrete, local, and temporal meaning. σκεύος... τέσσαρσιν ἀρχαΐς καθιέμενον "a sheet... which was let down to earth by its four corners" Acts 10:11; 11:5. - Generally, but not exclusively, the temporal meaning comes to the fore, see Heb 5:12; 6:1; 7:3; ἀ. τῶν σημείων John 2:11; cf. Mt 24:8; Mk 13:8; ἀ. also refers to the beginning of a book Mark 1:1. - The temporal meaning is dominant in connections with prepositions: ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς "from the beginning" John 15:27; 1 John 2:7, 24; 3:11; 2 John 5, 6; Acts 26:4. In the same sense, ἐξ ἀρχῆς Luke 1:2; John 6:64; 16:4. ἐν ἀρχῇ as a nearly exact translation of the Hebrew bereshit in Genesis 1:1 is used provocatively in John 1:1: it is clear that this has nothing to do with the Greek philosophical concept of ἀρχή (cf. Latin principium), and does not intend to declare that fundamentally or in principle everything happened as described in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1; cf. also Acts 11:15; Philippians 4:15; similarly, Mt 19:4, 8; John 8:44; 1 John 1:1; 3:8; 2 Thess 2:13. - Substantivized prepositional phrase ἀπ' ἀρχῆς "who was from the beginning" 1 John 2:13. - This thought appears with further elaboration in ἀπ' ἀρχῆς κτίσεως "since the beginning of creation" (perhaps: "since creation, the beginning") Mark 10:6; 13:19; 2 Peter 3:4; ἀπ' ἀρχῆς τοῦ κόσμου Matthew 24:21. - κατ' ἀρχάς "in the beginning, at the very start" Hebrews 1:10 (Psalm 102:16): this - in line with the nature of Hebrews - implies much more of a "principle" element. - The original meaning shows a personal shift in Colossians 1:18 (cf. Acts 1:8 TR). - 2. In an abstract sense: principium = principle; the ultimate cause and (theoretical) explanation of the existence of the world; in this sense, only Revelation 3:14 (ἡ ἀ. τῆς κτίσεως) is relevant, but even here, the meaning of ἀπαρχή is more likely. - 3. As another aspect of "primacy": in the sense of rule, dominion, power, it is used partly for earthly, partly for heavenly "angelic" authorities, the word appears in Luke 20:20; plural in Luke 12:11; Titus 3:1. Transferred to the angelic realm, but with the basic meaning being earthly-concrete Romans 8:38; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Ephesians 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Colossians 1:16; 2:10, 15. - 4. In a very abstract sense, sphere of influence, in the New Testament only in Jude 6: "angels... who did not keep their own position". - 5. A very special case in John 8:25 this sentence: τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅ τι καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν; uncertain punctuation (depending on it being a question or statement), but also uncertain is the meaning of τὴν ἀρχὴν at the beginning of the sentence. If we want to develop in the direction of the least linguistic resistance, the solution is roughly this: "Why do I speak to you at all?" This gives an acceptable meaning in the context but doesn't touch on the essence even remotely. The most correct, therefore, is to consider τὴν ἀρχὴν as an object accusative, then the translation is approximately: "Why should I speak to you about the beginning?" (a question with an unreal indicative statement; cf. 1:1). The continuation shows that in the Johannine sense, ἀρχή can mean "beginning" in a certain sense, but certainly not the "first step". Many things still need to be clarified before that.

    To address the argument presented by the Jehovah’s Witnesses regarding the interpretation of Revelation 3:14 and related passages, it is important to delve into the linguistic, cultural, and theological contexts of the terms used, as well as the broader scriptural narrative.

    Detailed Rebuttal

    1. Linguistic Considerations: The Meaning of "ἀρχή" (archē)

    The BDAG Lexicon does mention that "first created" is a linguistically (!!!) "probable" meaning for "ἀρχή" in Revelation 3:14. However, it also notes other meanings such as "origin" or "ruler," which are equally plausible given the broader biblical context. The term "ἀρχή" is multi-faceted and can be interpreted based on the context in which it is used. In the case of Revelation 3:14, understanding "ἀρχή" as "origin" or "source" aligns more consistently with the overall depiction of Christ in the New Testament.

    2. Cultural Context: Jewish Wisdom Tradition

    The argument that the New Testament passages draw on the Jewish Wisdom tradition, where Wisdom is seen as God’s first creation or a principal angel, requires careful examination. While Jewish literature does personify Wisdom, attributing divine characteristics and a role in creation, the New Testament distinctly presents Jesus not merely as personified Wisdom but as the incarnate Word (Logos) of God, which goes beyond the Jewish Wisdom literature.

    • John 1:1-3: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." This passage clearly distinguishes the Word (Logos) as eternally existent and directly involved in creation, not as a created being.
    • Colossians 1:15-17: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him." The term "firstborn" (πρωτότοκος, prototokos) here signifies preeminence and authority, not creation. It emphasizes that all creation is through and for Christ, underscoring His supremacy over creation.
    • Hebrews 1:2-3: "In these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word."

    These passages collectively affirm that Jesus, as the Logos, is eternal and integral to creation, not a part of it.

    3. Theological Consistency: Jesus as Creator

    Interpreting "ἀρχή" as "first created" in Revelation 3:14 would indeed contradict other New Testament passages that emphasize Jesus' role as the Creator:

    • John 1:3: "All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." This statement categorically places Jesus as the agent of creation, excluding the possibility of Him being a created entity.
    • 1 Corinthians 8:6: "Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." This verse distinguishes the roles within the Godhead but clearly asserts that all things come through Jesus.
    • Colossians 1:16: Reinforces that all things were created through and for Christ, emphasizing His preexistence and active role in creation.
    • Hebrews 1:2: Declares that through the Son, God made the universe, highlighting the Son's divine agency in creation.

    Addressing Historical Context vs. Fourth Century Trinitarian Context

    The claim that interpreting these passages within a fourth-century Trinitarian context is outside their historical setting fails to consider the inherent and consistent depiction of Christ’s divinity and preexistence in the New Testament. The early Church Fathers, who were closer in time to the apostolic teachings, interpreted these texts in light of Christ’s divine nature, as seen in their writings and creeds.

    Conclusion

    While the term "ἀρχή" can have multiple meanings, the context of Revelation 3:14, along with the broader scriptural testimony, supports the understanding of Jesus as the origin or source of creation, not a created being. The interpretation that aligns with the entire biblical narrative and maintains theological consistency is that Jesus, the Logos, is eternal, preexistent, and integral to creation. Thus, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation that Jesus was created is not supported by the comprehensive biblical evidence.


    Response to the Arguments Regarding Revelation 3:14 and Related Passages

    1. Intellectual Conviction vs. Emotional Argumentation: The claim that my arguments are based on intellectual conviction rather than emotion stands. Intellectual debate often involves presenting strong convictions and supporting them with evidence, which is not inherently emotional or hateful. Ad hominem attacks do not address the substance of the argument.

    2. Understanding 'Beginning' in Biblical Context: The term "beginning" (ἀρχή) in biblical literature is multi-faceted. While it can mean "commencement" as the JW argues, it also holds the connotation of "origin" or "first cause," particularly in theological contexts. For example, in Proverbs 9:10 and Psalm 111:10, "beginning" refers to the foundational principle, not merely the start of a sequence.

    3. Barnes’ Notes on Psalm 111:10 and Revelation 3:14: Barnes interprets "beginning" in Psalm 111:10 as the foundation of wisdom, implying its origin. Similarly, while he acknowledges that ἀρχή in Revelation 3:14 can denote "commencement," he also affirms that it is appropriate to see Christ as the originator of creation, consistent with John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16.

    4. Lexical Evidence: The BDAG Lexicon does list "first created" as a linguistically probable meaning of ἀρχή in Revelation 3:14, but it also includes "origin" and "first cause." This range of meanings suggests that context is crucial in determining the appropriate translation. The broader context of the New Testament consistently portrays Christ as the active agent in creation, not as a created being (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2-3).

    5. Jewish Wisdom Tradition: While the Jewish Wisdom tradition describes Wisdom as the first of God’s creations, the New Testament writers apply these concepts to Christ in a way that emphasizes His preexistence and divinity. For example, John 1:1-3 identifies Jesus as the Logos who was with God in the beginning and through whom all things were made. This application transcends the Wisdom tradition by attributing creation's active cause to Christ.

    6. Passive vs. Active Verbs in Creation: The use of passive verbs in Colossians 1:16 and John 1:3 does not diminish Christ’s role in creation. Instead, it highlights that all things were created "through" Him, indicating His instrumental role in the divine creative act. This is consistent with the theological portrayal of Christ as the divine Logos.

    7. Philo’s Influence and Biblical Philosophy: Philo's use of ἀρχή to mean "beginning" or "origin" supports the interpretation of Christ as the originator of creation. While Philo was a philosopher, his concepts influenced early Christian thought. The New Testament writers, though not philosophers in the technical sense, engaged with contemporary Hellenistic ideas to communicate theological truths.

    8. Trinitarian Context and Historical Setting: Understanding passages like Revelation 3:14 within the broader context of the New Testament and early Christian theology does not impose a fourth-century Trinitarian framework anachronistically. Instead, it respects the development of doctrine that arose from the scriptural witness to Christ’s divinity and role in creation.

    9. Christ as the Source of Creation: Interpreting Christ as the source of creation is consistent with the broader New Testament witness. Passages such as John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 explicitly state that all things were made through Him. This understanding does not conflict with the portrayal of God the Father as the ultimate source, as it reflects the cooperative work within the Trinity.

    10. Theological Consistency: Interpreting ἀρχή in Revelation 3:14 as "origin" or "first cause" maintains theological consistency with the rest of the New Testament. This view upholds Christ's divinity, preexistence, and active role in creation, avoiding the contradiction that would arise from viewing Him as a created being.

    11. Proverbs 8 and Wisdom Literature: Proverbs 8 personifies Wisdom, which early Christians saw as a typological reference to Christ. The use of first-person pronouns for Wisdom in Proverbs does not necessitate a direct equivalence but rather points to the preexistent Logos who embodies divine wisdom.

    12. Begotten vs. Created: The early church distinguished between "begotten" and "created." While some early texts used these terms interchangeably, the Nicene Creed clarified that Christ is "begotten, not made," affirming His eternal generation from the Father. This doctrinal development reflects a deeper understanding of scriptural teaching on Christ's nature.

    In conclusion, the interpretation of ἀρχή in Revelation 3:14 as "origin" or "first cause" aligns with the broader New Testament portrayal of Christ as the divine agent of creation. This view respects both the lexical range of the term and the theological context of the entire biblical corpus.

    @Blotty

    Response to the Arguments Regarding Revelation 3:14 and Related Passages

    1. Intellectual Conviction vs. Emotional Argumentation: The claim that my arguments are based on intellectual conviction rather than emotion stands. Intellectual debate often involves presenting strong convictions and supporting them with evidence, which is not inherently emotional or hateful. Ad hominem attacks do not address the substance of the argument.

    2. Understanding 'Beginning' in Biblical Context: The term "beginning" (ἀρχή) in biblical literature is multi-faceted. While it can mean "commencement" as the JWs argue, it also holds the connotation of "origin" or "first cause," particularly in theological contexts. For example, in Proverbs 9:10 and Psalm 111:10, "beginning" refers to the foundational principle, not merely the start of a sequence.

    3. Barnes’ Notes on Psalm 111:10 and Revelation 3:14: Barnes interprets "beginning" in Psalm 111:10 as the foundation of wisdom, implying its origin. Similarly, while he acknowledges that ἀρχή in Revelation 3:14 can denote "commencement," he also affirms that it is appropriate to see Christ as the originator of creation, consistent with John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16.

    4. Lexical Evidence: The BDAG Lexicon does list "first created" as a linguistically (!!!) "probable" meaning of ἀρχή in Revelation 3:14, but it also includes "origin" and "first cause." This range of meanings suggests that context is crucial in determining the appropriate translation. The broader context of the New Testament consistently portrays Christ as the active agent in creation, not as a created being (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2-3).

    5. Jewish Wisdom Tradition: While the Jewish Wisdom tradition describes Wisdom as the first of God’s creations, the New Testament writers apply these concepts to Christ in a way that emphasizes His preexistence and divinity. For example, John 1:1-3 identifies Jesus as the Logos who was with God in the beginning and through whom all things were made. This application transcends the Wisdom tradition by attributing creation's active cause to Christ.

    6. Passive vs. Active Verbs in Creation: The use of passive verbs in Colossians 1:16 and John 1:3 does not diminish Christ’s role in creation. Instead, it highlights that all things were created "through" Him, indicating His instrumental role in the divine creative act. This is consistent with the theological portrayal of Christ as the divine Logos.

    7. Philo’s Influence and Biblical Philosophy: Philo's use of ἀρχή to mean "beginning" or "origin" supports the interpretation of Christ as the originator of creation. While Philo was a philosopher, his concepts influenced early Christian thought. The New Testament writers, though not philosophers in the technical sense, engaged with contemporary Hellenistic ideas to communicate theological truths.

    8. Trinitarian Context and Historical Setting: Understanding passages like Revelation 3:14 within the broader context of the New Testament and early Christian theology does not impose a fourth-century Trinitarian framework anachronistically. Instead, it respects the development of doctrine that arose from the scriptural witness to Christ’s divinity and role in creation.

    9. Christ as the Source of Creation: Interpreting Christ as the source of creation is consistent with the broader New Testament witness. Passages such as John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 explicitly state that all things were made through Him. This understanding does not conflict with the portrayal of God the Father as the ultimate source, as it reflects the cooperative work within the Trinity.

    10. Theological Consistency: Interpreting ἀρχή in Revelation 3:14 as "origin" or "first cause" maintains theological consistency with the rest of the New Testament. This view upholds Christ's divinity, preexistence, and active role in creation, avoiding the contradiction that would arise from viewing Him as a created being.

    11. Proverbs 8 and Wisdom Literature: Proverbs 8 personifies Wisdom, which early Christians saw as a typological reference to Christ. The use of first-person pronouns for Wisdom in Proverbs does not necessitate a direct equivalence but rather points to the preexistent Logos who embodies divine wisdom.

    12. Begotten vs. Created: The early church distinguished between "begotten" and "created." While some early, especially Wisdom literature OT texts used these terms interchangeably, the Nicene Creed clarified that Christ is "begotten, not made," affirming His eternal generation from the Father. This doctrinal development reflects a deeper understanding of scriptural teaching on Christ's nature. Dionysius of Rome, in his letter "Against the Sabellians," criticizes those who interpret Proverbs 8:22 to mean that the Son was created. He argues that interpreting "created" (ἔκτισέν) as "made" or "fashioned" is a grave error. He emphasizes that the term "created" in this context should be understood as "appointed" or "established" over God's works, made by the Son Himself, rather than implying the Son’s creation. Dionysius points out the difference between creating (κτίζω) and making (ποιέω), arguing that the Son’s divine and ineffable generation cannot be reduced to the concept of making or creating in a human sense. He highlights that the Son is described in many passages as being "begotten" but never as having "come into being," thereby rejecting the notion that the Son is a created entity.

    In conclusion, the interpretation of ἀρχή in Revelation 3:14 as "origin" or "first cause" aligns with the broader New Testament portrayal of Christ as the divine agent of creation. This view respects both the lexical range of the term and the theological context of the entire biblical corpus.

  • Blotty
    Blotty

    This refutes nothing I have said... and it still doesn't answer why no dictionary lists Rev 3:14 under the "First cause" meaning (or any scripture for that matter)

    Barnes literally says both times "The commencement"... so you are being blatently dishonest

    "ek" is only ever used of the Father (the source of creation, according to most trinitarians) in regards to creation to denote origin..
    (ek is commonly used for Christ's resurrection aswell - its one of Pauls self imposed rules to denote where Christ came from)

    and it only "doesn't fit" because you don't want it too, not because it cant fit or there is any biblical precedent for it not to fit..

    "Dionysius points out the difference between creating (κτίζω) and making (ποιέω), arguing that the Son’s divine and ineffable generation cannot be reduced to the concept of making or creating in a human sense. He highlights that the Son is described in many passages as being "begotten" but never as having "come into being," thereby rejecting the notion that the Son is a created entity."

    - creating (κτίζω) and making (ποιέω) are literally synonyms - if we look at the lxx we see usages of "begotten" which all tie to a basic meaning of "something someone did not posess before"

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    @Blotty

    Lexicons and dictionaries, while valuable tools, are not infallible and often reflect the prevailing interpretations and scholarly debates of their times. The BDAG lexicon, for instance, offers multiple meanings for ἀρχή, including "beginning," "origin," and "first cause." The choice of meaning in any given passage must be determined by context, not merely by dictionary entries.

    In Revelation 3:14, the context is critical. The verse describes Jesus as "the ἀρχή of God's creation." Given the consistent portrayal of Jesus as the agent of creation in John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:2-3, interpreting ἀρχή as "origin" or "first cause" aligns with the broader scriptural testimony that Jesus is the active agent through whom God created everything.

    Barnes' Notes is just one commentary and reflects one interpretation. There are numerous other reputable commentaries and scholars who interpret ἀρχή in Revelation 3:14 as "origin" or "source" rather than "commencement."

    The preposition ἐκ (ek) denotes origin or source, and its use with reference to the Father emphasizes the Father as the ultimate source of all creation. However, this does not negate the role of the Son as the agent of creation. John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:2 all emphasize that all things were made through (διὰ) the Son.The consistent New Testament portrayal is that the Father is the source (ἐκ), and the Son is the means or agent (διὰ) through whom creation came into being. This cooperative relationship underscores the distinct roles within the Godhead, not a hierarchy of being created.I note: according to the Trinitarian theology, the source of the Son is also the Father, you should not ignore this.

    While κτίζω and ποιέω can be used interchangeably in some contexts (especially in the LXX translation of the OT wisdom literature) to denote the act of bringing something into existence, there is a nuanced theological distinction when applied to the relationship between the Father and the Son. The Nicene Creed, reflecting early Church consensus, explicitly distinguishes between "begotten" (γεννηθέντα) and "made" (ποιηθέντα). The term "begotten" underscores the unique, eternal relationship between the Father and the Son, emphasizing that the Son shares the same divine nature as the Father and was not created or made in the same way as the rest of creation. Scripturally, Jesus is never described as having been created (κτίζω) or made (ποιέω) but consistently described as the begotten (μονογενής) Son of God (John 3:16, John 1:18). This indicates a unique generation from the Father, not an act of creation.

    Your argument rests on a selective interpretation of lexicon entries and an assumption that traditional theological distinctions between "begotten" and "created" are invalid. However, the broader context of Scripture, the nuanced understanding of Greek terms, and the theological consensus of the early Church Fathers all support the interpretation that Jesus, the Son of God, is not a created being but the eternally begotten, divine agent through whom all things were made. This aligns with the consistent biblical testimony of His divine nature and eternal existence.

  • Blotty
    Blotty

    "The BDAG lexicon, for instance, offers multiple meanings for ἀρχή, including "beginning," "origin," and "first cause." " - then answer the question why BDAG lists NO Bible verse for the "First-cause" meaning? and says the meaning of "First-created" is "probable"

    you cant admit this - because if you did your theological position would fall apart.. BDAG is authoritative - it is not infallable however, but in this case like Clifford and Fox state Prov 8:22 likely had some influence whether you like it or not.

    "2. In an abstract sense: principium = principle; the ultimate cause and (theoretical) explanation of the existence of the world; in this sense, only Revelation 3:14 (ἡ ἀ. τῆς κτίσεως) is relevant, but even here, the meaning of ἀπαρχή is more likely. - " - name of dictionary?

    " but even here, the meaning of ἀπαρχή is more likely." - this is telling not even the author of the dictionary believes this meaning exists in the verse..

    https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/aparche

    Game Over!

  • Rattigan350
    Rattigan350

    Jesus being the first or beginning of God's creation would go along with his being the only-begotten son of God.

    It's that simple. No need for 8 pages of comments.

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    You emphasize that the BDAG lexicon lists "first created" as a "probable" meaning for archē in Revelation 3:14 and argue that if the "first cause" meaning were valid, there should be specific Bible verses supporting it. The term archē has a wide semantic range, and while BDAG might not list specific verses under "first cause" or "origin," this doesn't invalidate that meaning, especially when supported by context. Lexicons aim to provide the most likely meanings based on the usage of words in specific passages, and they are not comprehensive theological treatises. Contextual usage can drive interpretation.

    Revelation 3:14 calls Jesus "the archē of God’s creation." To interpret archē as “first created” would contradict the broader scriptural witness regarding Jesus as the Creator, not a created being (e.g., John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2). Even if BDAG suggests first created as probable, it is only one possible interpretation and must be weighed against the theological and linguistic context of the passage. It is entirely valid to interpret archē as "origin" or "source" based on how Jesus is portrayed throughout the New Testament.

    You also suggest that Proverbs 8:22 ("The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work") influenced how archē is interpreted in Revelation 3:14. You mention scholars like Clifford and Fox who argue that this concept from Jewish Wisdom literature influenced New Testament Christology.

    While it is true that some early Christian writings reference Proverbs 8 to describe Jesus' role in creation, the New Testament presents Jesus not just as Wisdom personified but as the Logos (Word), who is integral to creation and eternal. The interpretation of Proverbs 8:22 by some scholars as referring to a created being (Wisdom) does not negate the consistent New Testament teaching that Jesus is eternal and uncreated (John 1:1-3). Thus, any link between Proverbs 8 and Revelation 3:14 does not automatically mean that Jesus is a created being.

    You challenge me to name the dictionary or source where aparchē ("firstfruits") is more likely the intended meaning of archē in Revelation 3:14, and emphasize that the dictionary itself suggests aparchē is more probable. The dictionary I quoted is not in English, so you won't find it anyway.

    This claim misunderstands the distinct meanings of archē and aparchē. While aparchē means "firstfruits" (as in the first portion of something, often with sacrificial connotations), archē refers to the "beginning" or "origin" of something. Revelation 3:14 uses archē, not aparchē, making the argument less relevant. The use of archē in this context aligns with Jesus as the "origin" of creation, not as a first-created being. The distinction between archē and aparchē further supports that Jesus is being identified as the source of creation, rather than a created entity.

    You conclude by asserting that interpreting Jesus as the "first" or "beginning" of God's creation aligns with His title as the "only-begotten Son" of God.

    This is a misunderstanding of what "only-begotten" (Greek: monogenēs) means. The term monogenēs does not imply that Jesus was created but rather emphasizes His unique and eternal relationship with the Father. The Nicene Creed, based on Scripture, makes a crucial distinction between being "begotten" and "created." Jesus is "begotten, not made," which affirms His eternal divinity. He is not the first created being but rather shares in the eternal nature of God (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15-17).

    In summary:

    • The BDAG lexicon does not provide an exhaustive theological conclusion but offers possible meanings based on context. "First cause" or "origin" is a legitimate interpretation of archē in Revelation 3:14, supported by other New Testament passages.
    • While Proverbs 8:22 may influence some interpretations, the New Testament portrayal of Jesus as the eternal Logos goes beyond Jewish Wisdom literature.
    • The distinction between archē and aparchē is important, and the use of archē in Revelation 3:14 indicates that Jesus is the origin of creation, not a created being.
    • Jesus as the "only-begotten Son" emphasizes His unique, eternal relationship with the Father, not His creation.
  • Blotty
    Blotty

    "The term archē has a wide semantic range, and while BDAG might not list specific verses under "first cause" or "origin," this doesn't invalidate that meaning" - please cite another instance where a verse is not listed under a meaning for a specific word used. It invalidates the meaning in the bible as BDAG cites other writings for such a meaning but puts Rev 3:14 as a possibility for such a meaning.
    And again as Barnes notes the meaning is "commencement" note "authorship" (What you basically claim) tho Barnes disagrees with the "created" meaning for theological reasons - atleast he can admit its the most likely meaning. (according to Johns usage it is, want a non-witness source who uses the same argument? its not invented by Witnesses, trust me)

    Even in Rev, a quick look at the usages show, this John would also have used "Arkhon" or Pauls word for originator..

    "Even if BDAG suggests first created as probable, it is only one possible interpretation and must be weighed against the theological and linguistic context of the passage. " - I think the authors would have done that... I think its more you not being honest..

    " Jesus as the Creator, not a created being (e.g., John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2)." - where do these verses say he is not a created being? Where does the bible explicitly call Christ "Creator"? Just one passage please - a simple statement would be nice

    1:3 uses dia and a passive verb, keeping "ton theon" in focus (a function of the passive verb is to keep the last "subject" in focus) Origen notes a clear distinction.. So do others

    1:16 has passive verbs (change them to active and God of V 12 is the creator, not the Firstborn)

    Origen says "God commanded the Firstborn...."

    1:2 has verbs where the antesedent is not "the son" but "God"

    "While it is true that some early Christian writings reference Proverbs 8 to describe Jesus' role in creation, the New Testament presents Jesus not just as Wisdom personified but as the Logos (Word)" - you gonna mention the other important bit? or am I going to cite about 3 different sources from credible people that say something that trounces you? your choice.

    " The dictionary I quoted is not in English, so you won't find it anyway." - I don't care, I want the citation please - if this dictionary exists, you would be more than willing to cite it. (starting to think it doesn't- which would make you a fabricator of evidence aswell)

    you also clearly didn't read your own source because it says: " but even here, the meaning of ἀπαρχή is more likely." - look at the words "the meaning" tho the word doesn't occur, the meaning of the word "ἀπαρχή" should "more likely" be applied.

    " Thus, any link between Proverbs 8 and Revelation 3:14 does not automatically mean that Jesus is a created being." - it would actually because by the time of Paul Christ was pretty much synonymous with the Wisdom of Proverbs 8 as can be seen in other Jewish litrature like sirach where every academic study I have looked at parallels Proverbs 8:22 with 24:9 and other verses.

    and a paralel in Matt and Luke (I believe) pretty much make it an identification

    and Paul literally makes it an identification.

    (unbias sources from what I can tell - would you like them? more than happy to cite them)

    "The interpretation of Proverbs 8:22 by some scholars as referring to a created being (Wisdom)" - cite an unbias source that doesn't interpret it, the way Witnesses do

    btw the temporal marker for 8:22 is actaully in verse 23 :) as Origen comments about John 1:1b and John 1:2 - 1b gives NOTHING temporally about when The word was with God, 1:2 gives us the "location"

    "You conclude by asserting that interpreting Jesus as the "first" or "beginning" of God's creation aligns with His title as the "only-begotten Son" of God." - try reading, that was someone else.

    So Logos was the only one to have a relationship with the Father? What about the spirit? why is it not monogenes? what is the difference

    and what is this "relationship"?

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    You claim that the term "archē" in Revelation 3:14 must be interpreted as "first created" because it is listed as a “probable” meaning in BDAG, and you suggest that since "first cause" isn't directly supported by verse references in BDAG, it is an invalid interpretation. This argument ignores the broader principle of contextual translation. Lexicons provide a range of potential meanings, and context determines which meaning is the most appropriate. In Revelation 3:14, Jesus is described as the "archē of God's creation"—the "beginning" or "source" of creation, as supported by passages like John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:2. These verses emphasize that all things were created through Jesus, which strongly suggests that the meaning of "archē" in Revelation 3:14 is "origin" or "first cause," not "first created."

    The argument you present—based on BDAG's listing of "first created" as a probable meaning—fails to consider that BDAG, as well as other lexicons, presents multiple meanings for "archē", depending on context. The idea of Jesus as the "origin" of creation is consistent with His role as Creator, as outlined in several New Testament texts. Therefore, while "first created" is linguistically possible, it is theologically inconsistent with the Bible's broader teachings about Jesus' divine role in creation.

    You ask where the Bible explicitly calls Jesus the Creator. Let's address this:

    • John 1:3: "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that has been made." This passage clearly states that everything was made through Jesus, which logically excludes Him from being a created being. If everything that exists was made through Jesus, then He cannot be part of that creation.
    • Colossians 1:16: "For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him." Here, all things are said to be created by Jesus, which again excludes Him from being part of creation.
    • Hebrews 1:2.10: "In these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom also He made the universe. […]In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.”

    You claim that these verses do not say Jesus is not a created being, but the language is clear and explicit: Jesus is the agent through whom everything was made. This precludes the possibility that He is part of creation Himself.

    You bring up Origen and claim that he saw a distinction between the Father as Creator and the Son as a created being. However, this is a misrepresentation of Origen's views. Origen believed in the eternality of the Son. He used the concept of the eternal generation of the Son, which means that the Son was not created in time but was eternally begotten by the Father. Origen did distinguish between the Father and the Son in terms of roles within the Godhead, but he did not view the Son as a created being in the way that Jehovah's Witnesses argue. The idea of eternal generation affirms the Son's divine nature and eternal existence, not His creation.

    You argue that because passive verbs are used in Colossians 1:16 and John 1:3, the focus is on God the Father as the ultimate Creator. However, the use of passive verbs does not negate the Son's role as the agent of creation. In fact, the New Testament consistently presents the Father as the source of creation and the Son as the instrument or agent through whom all things were made. This cooperative relationship within the Trinity does not imply a hierarchy in nature or being but rather functional distinction.

    You assert that Proverbs 8:22 and the Jewish Wisdom tradition prove that Christ was created. However, the New Testament writers, particularly John, apply the concept of Wisdom to Jesus in a way that goes beyond personification. In John 1:1-3, Jesus is described as the Logos (Word), who was with God in the beginning and who was God. This passage emphasizes Jesus' eternality and divinity, not His creation. While Proverbs 8 may describe Wisdom as “created,” “appointed,” or “possessed,” the New Testament identifies Jesus as eternal and directly involved in creation, making it clear that He is not merely personified Wisdom but the divine Logos.

    Additionally, Proverbs 8:22 is often mistranslated by those who wish to argue that Wisdom (and thus Jesus) was created. A more accurate translation is that Wisdom was "possessed" by God, not created. Early Christian writers, like the Church Fathers, understood Proverbs 8 in a typological sense, seeing Wisdom as a foreshadowing of Christ but recognizing that Jesus, as the divine Word, is eternal and uncreated.

    You raise the question of why the Spirit is not called "monogenes" if Jesus is the only-begotten Son. The term "monogenes" (often translated as "only-begotten") emphasizes the unique relationship between the Father and the Son. It does not imply creation but rather the eternal generation of the Son from the Father. The Holy Spirit has a different role in the Godhead and is not begotten like the Son; rather, the Spirit is said to proceed from the Father and the Son (as per Western Christian tradition). This reflects the distinct relationships within the Trinity, not a hierarchical structure of created beings.

    Your interpretation of "archē" in Revelation 3:14 as "first created" is not supported by the broader biblical context. Jesus is consistently portrayed in the New Testament as eternal and the agent of creation, not a part of creation. The understanding of Christ as the Logos and eternally begotten Son is central to Christian theology, and the idea that He is a created being is inconsistent with the entirety of the scriptural testimony.

  • Blotty
    Blotty

    Where's my citation for the dictionary? I now assume you have have provided fraudulent evidence. until you produce the original.

    "You claim that the term "archē" in Revelation 3:14 must be interpreted as "first created" because it is listed as a “probable” meaning in BDAG" - quote me verbatum where I say this - WHERE do I say this?

    All I say is the "First-cause" meaning is invalid as the BDAG negates the meaning - with its secondary statement about arkhe (and your fraudulent citation also negates the first cause meaning)

    " the use of passive verbs does not negate the Son's role as the agent of creation." - Where did I claim it did - again quote me verbatum please
    all I said was the focus was on what the father did through the son (Wisdom) - The Father is the source of creation not the son..

    "In John 1:1-3, Jesus is described as the Logos (Word), who was with God in the beginning and who was God. " - there are church fathers who assert there was something that happened before the beginning of creation - The Father begetting (or creating) something before the Beginning is not impossible

    Heb 1:10 is a quotation so the verb would naturally be active in this case (v 3-4 passives, burden of proof on you) abd there are plenty of examples of the instrument being addressed in a similar way to the actaul source - Lets see, Solomon building the Temple is actaully credited to God (tho God never lifted a finger, come to think of it neither did Solomon) and quite a few others.

    "A more accurate translation is that Wisdom was "possessed" by God, not created." - possession and creation are closely linked in Hebrew thought - so your saying the LXXs translation is also wrong and in Gen?
    Where the translators no doubt had a really good understanding of Hebrew

    (modern scholarship has already debunked this argument... scholars can get it wrong.. please write one of your essays refuting them and publicly submit it for peer review.. (on a site like academia) - But i know you wont, because you are wrong.

    you also have to get past the church fathers translation of the word (alot being "ektisen")
    an a bunch of different scholars including but not limited to: Burney, Clifford, Stafford (not technically a scholar, but has done some incredible scholarship), etc

    "Jesus is consistently portrayed in the New Testament as eternal and the agent of creation, not a part of creation. " - oh so now he is the "agent of creation" not the creator... thank you
    The agent of creation is NOT the same as being the creator
    Just as being a messenger for a king is NOT the same as being the King himself (tho is thought of as the person he is representing, is not actually that person)

    Get past all of their evidence then you MIGHT have a point - but your a nobody on a forum making excessivily long posts desperatly trying to prove a point, these are well recognised and respected scholars who studied for years to know Hebrew and Greek - I believe them over you anyday

    and you havent defined what this relationship is

  • Blotty
    Blotty

    Earnests comment also springs to mind :
    ""So, in the second century the versions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion were prepared for Greek-speaking Jews, all of which revised the verb used in the LXX at Proverbs 8:22 which Christians (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria) were applying to Christ. In the third century Origen edited the LXX on the basis of the Hebrew and retained the verb ἔκτισε (meaning "created") at Proverbs 8:22 despite the alternative renderings in the other Greek versions. So there is good reason to accept the LXX translation as having greater authority for Christians than the alternatives you seem to prefer.""

    Origen in MANY encyclopedias is credited with being one of the most HONEST scholars in History - I don't think you want to argue with Origen on the Greek Language...

    this is why Aquia uses a greek word for "possesed" rather then "Ektisen"
    "About 130 ce Aquila, a convert to Judaism from Pontus in Asia Minor, translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek under the supervision of Rabbi Akiba. Executed with slavish literalness, it attempted to reproduce the original to the most minute detail, even to the extent of coining derivations from Greek roots to correspond to Hebrew usage. "

    (source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/Early-versions#ref597387) - Other sources available on request

    Next time include information like this in your posts - dont make go digging for it because it actually hurts your credibility if you knew about this

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit