Rella ~ I am a woman
Well-Known Member
No, the error is that they cannot see that God as the Word Created all things, and then that Word became flesh about 4000 years later.
They can not understand perfection in simplicity.
A Question for Jehovah's Witnesses
- Thread starter RR144
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
They can not understand perfection in simplicity.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Keiw
Well-Known Member
Yes because he is spoken of alone in those spots, but at John 1:1 and 2 Cor 4:4, 2 are being called God and god, thus Ton Theon to the true God, plain Theon to god. Its fact. Trinity bible scholars know its fact, they say nothing because every year billions of dollars would be lost. All those religions would be proved false, and because they know, 2 billion humans would sue all of them for taking their money when they do know.
Runningman
Active Member
Elohim, though a plural word, doesn't necessarily refer to a plurality of beings or a compound god. I went over this several posts back, perhaps a few pages ago by now, giving Biblical examples where elohim is used to refer to singular individuals.
Matthew 11:25 identifies the Father as the sole Lord of heaven and earth, meanwhile Jesus is never called the Lord of heaven and earth in the Bible. Acts 17:24,25 says that God is the Lord of heaven and earth, is the creator of all things, and is not served by human hands. Given that God is not served by human hands, Jesus has human hands, and Jesus is never called the Lord of heaven and earth, we can rightly understand the Creator as being the Father. Same thing in Acts 4:24-27 where the Creator is the Sovereign Lord and Jesus is His servant.
No, the emptying was simply a change of position from Heaven to becoming human on earth.
Keiw
Well-Known Member
Best believe Jesus--John 17:3--This means eternal life, their knowing you( Father) THE ONLY TRUE GOD and the one whom you sent forth Jesus Christ= plain simple English--2 beings being spoken of, one is the only true God=Father, the other is the one whom he sent to earth Jesus, proving 100% God did not come down here he sent another. See how satan has 2 billion trinitarians losing out on eternal life because they do not know the Father as the only true God.
C o m m e n t a r y | from Adam Clarke's Commentary... Who is the image of the invisible God - The counterpart of God Almighty, and if the image of the invisible God, consequently nothing that appeared in him could be that image; for if it could be visible in the Son, it could also be visible in the Father; but if the Father be invisible, consequently his image in the Son must be invisible also. This is that form of God of which he divested himself; the ineffable glory in which he not only did not appear, as to its splendor and accompaniments, but concealed also its essential nature; that inaccessible light which no man, no created being, can possibly see. This was that Divine nature, the fullness of the Godhead bodily, which dwelt in him. The first-born of every creature - I suppose this phrase to mean the same as that, Phi 2:9 : God hath given him a name which is above every name; he is as man at the head of all the creation of God; nor can he with any propriety be considered as a creature, having himself created all things, and existed before any thing was made. If it be said that God created him first, and that he, by a delegated power from God, created all things, this is most flatly contradicted by the apostle’s reasoning in the 16th and 17th verses. As the Jews term Jehovah becoro shel olam, the first-born of all the world, or of all the creation, to signify his having created or produced all things; (see Wolfius in loc.) so Christ is here termed, and the words which follow in the 16th and 17th verses are the proof of this. The phraseology is Jewish; and as they apply it to the supreme Being merely to denote his eternal pre-existence, and to point him out as the cause of all things; it is most evident that St. Paul uses it in the same way, and illustrates his meaning in the following words, which would be absolutely absurd if we could suppose that by the former he intended to convey any idea of the inferiority of Jesus Christ (Clarke). from Jamieson, Fausset, Brown... Col 1:15 - They who have experienced in themselves "redemption" (Col 1:14), know Christ in the glorious character here described, as above the highest angels to whom the false teachers (Col 2:18) taught worship was to be paid. Paul describes Him: (1) in relation to God and creation (Col 1:15-17); (2) in relation to the Church (Col 1:18-20). As the former regards Him as the Creator (Col 1:15-16) and the Sustainer (Col 1:17) of the natural world; so the latter, as the source and stay of the new moral creation. image--exact likeness and perfect Representative. Adam was made "in the image of God" (Gen 1:27). But Christ, the second Adam, perfectly reflected visibly "the invisible God" (1Ti 1:17), whose glories the first Adam only in part represented. "Image" (eicon) involves "likeness" (homoiosis); but "likeness" does not involve "image." "Image" always supposes a prototype, which it not merely resembles, but from which it is drawn: the exact counterpart, as the reflection of the sun in the water: the child the living image of the parent. "Likeness" implies mere resemblance, not the exact counterpart and derivation as "image" expresses; hence it is nowhere applied to the Son, while "image" is here, compare 1Co 11:7 [TRENCH]. (Joh 1:18; Joh 14:9; 2Co 4:4; 1Ti 3:16; Heb 1:3). Even before His incarnation He was the image of the invisible God, as the Word (Joh_1:1-3) by whom God created the worlds, and by whom God appeared to the patriarchs. Thus His essential character as always "the image of God," (1) before the incarnation, (2) in the days of His flesh, and (3) now in His glorified state, is, I think, contemplated here by the verb "is." first-born of every creature-- (Heb 1:6), "the first-begotten": "begotten of His Father before all worlds" [Nicene Creed]. Priority and superlative dignity is implied (Psa 89:27). English Version might seem to favor Arianism, as if Christ were a creature. Translate, "Begotten (literally, 'born') before every creature," as the context shows, which gives the reason why He is so designated. "For," &c. (Col 1:16-17) [TRENCH]. This expression is understood by ORIGEN (so far is the Greek from favoring Socinian or Arian views) as declaring the Godhead of Christ, and is used by Him as a phrase to mark that Godhead, in contrast with His manhood [Book 2, sec. Against Celsus] (JFB). |
F u r t h e r R e a d i n g | Articles... Old Testament Background of the Firstborn: Dr. Robert Keay on Col 1:15 The Structure and Rhetoric of Colossians 1:15-20: Luis C. Reyes (hosted by Bible Studies on the Web) The Latest JW Argument from Col 1:15 Ray Goldsmith Is Prototokos a 'Partitive Word?' Luis C. Reyes Dialogs... Ray Goldsmith and Wes Williams on Col 1:15 |
Commentary | A literal translation of this passage is grammatically ambiguous (decoding linguistic elements is not enough). Therefore we have to search for the author’s intended meaning also through contextual inference. Delling in Kittel’s Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament on page 479 made an important statement that needs to be kept in mind while looking at occurrences of arch, “arch always signifies “primacy,” whether in time “beginning,” principium or in rank: “power,” “dominion,” “office.” As a foundation, Rev. 3:14 needs to be put in the context of the entire book of Revelation. In 1:5, Jesus is called the (Ruler) arcwn over the Earth’s Kings and the faithful witness. The parallelism is unmistakable. Notice also ‘the Faithful and True Witness and ‘the Faithful Witness.’ arcwn obviously overlaps in meaning with arch as can be seen from a check of the standard lexicons. In 1:17, Jesus is “The First and The Last” as in 2:8 and 22:13. YHWH in the Old Testament has this name in Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12. In Rev. 5:13-14, a picture is given of “One sitting on the throne” and “to the Lamb” receiving worship. In 22:13, Jesus is given three names: The First and The Last, The Beginning and The End, and The Alpha and The Omega. This gives Jesus the same names of the Almighty as in 1:8 and 21:6. This is the high Christology of Revelation. What we have in Rev. 3:14 are three event words which are titles for Jesus. The first title is The Amen. This is most probably the same title of YHWH in Isaiah 65:16. His second title is “The Faithful and True Witness.” His third title is “The Ruler.” It could also mean ‘Source.’ Ruler or Source are both (event words) titles in this context. Beginning does not fit the immediate or the wider context. Mr. Stafford wants arch to have a passive use. By doing this, he destroys the parallelism of the titles. I understand the genitive in Rev. 3:14 to be objective. Therefore, as D.B. Wallace stated in his grammar, Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics, page 116, “the genitive substantive functions semantically as the direct object of the verbal idea implicit in the head noun.” In certain examples where beginning is a possibility, I think that we would find that more of an idea of ‘chief things’ would be more proper. For example, in Mark 1:1, ARCHE could mean ‘chief things’, ‘essentials’, or ‘summary.’ See Allen Wikgren in JBLARCHE TOU EUAGGELIOU pages 11-20 (need vol and date). Another interesting point is that whenever arch refers to a person, most of the time it has something to do with rule, dominion, or authority of some type(of course, only persons can be rulers). This is backed up from the LXX, New Testament, and secular usage. J.R. Mantey in Depth Explorations In The New Testament on page 100 stated, “Outside the NT, we found the following ideas expressed by the word: Beginning or Source, eighty-seven times; authority, forty times; office, thirty-six times; ruler or commander, thirty-two times; realm or dominion, eighteen times. A few samplings of the usage as ruler are: Plutarch, Morals II.151F, “he held the greatest and the most perfect position as a ruler.” In Lives VIII, Sertorius 10, “They were altogether lacking in a commander of great reputation.” In Morals V.75.E, “For it is not fitting for the Ruler and Lord of all to listen to anyone.” In Diodorus Siculus II Bk.3.5.1, “him the multitudes take for their king.” In Philo, Alleg. III.58, “for the sake of being a ruler with governors”; 66, ”Amalek, the ruler of nations.” Ruler in Rev. 3:14 also comports well with one of the most famous Messianic prophecies Isaiah 9:5-6 where the LXX uses arch for Christ’s rule. I end with a quote from Louw & Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon page 779, entry 89.16, “one who or that which constitutes an initial cause – ‘first cause, origin.’ H ARCHE THS KTISEOS TOU THOU ‘the origin of what God has created’ Rev. 3:14. It is also possible to understand arch in Rev. 3:14 as meaning ‘ruler’ (see 37.56).” One interesting historical side-note, Rev. 3:14 never comes up during the Arian controversy. |
Grammatical Analysis | h arch thV ktisews tou qeou Ê ARXÊ TÊS KTISEWS TOU THEOU The Beginning of the Creation of God. The "ruler" (arche, "source," "origin") further amplifies the Amen statement. Paul used arche in Colossians 1:18 to describe Christ as the source or origin of all creation (not the first created; cf. Prov 8:22; John 1:3), no doubt to correct a heresy. Since Colosse was a neighboring city of Laodicea, it is not improbable that the same heresy was also affecting the sister church at Laodicea. But this is not explicit. What is plain is this: When Christ addresses a church that is failing in loyalty and obedience, he is to them the "Amen" of God in faithfulness and in true witness, the only one who has absolute power over the world because he is the source and origin of all creation (1:17; 2:8; 22:13) (EBC). The beginning of the creation of God (hê archê tês ktiseôs tou theou). Not the first of creatures as the Arians held and Unitarians do now, but the originating source of creation through whom God works (Col 1:15, 18, a passage probably known to the Laodiceans, John 1:3; Heb 1:2, as is made clear by 1:18; 2:8; 3:21; 5:13) (RWP). |
1. This statistic can be misleading. In the LXX, it is closer to approximately 50% with the meaning of ‘beginning’. arch can mean beginning, rule, sum, choicest, edge, band, highest, origin, and top. In the second paragraph of this paper above, I show the absurdity of Furuli’s statistic. Context will determine the meaning in each occurrence. In the New Testament, the writers just happen to have used the meaning ‘beginning’ in most of the ways it was used.
2. Mr. Furuli does not tell us why arch in the singular or plural is significant. In those contexts, the ARCHAI are a multitude of false, spiritual entities at war with Christ and the saints or world rulers. They are always a multiplicity. But if Rev. 3:14 is taken as ‘ruler,’ it would stand in beautiful contrast to the multitude of false arcai of the world and spiritual realms. Since when does the number of a noun have any relation to its meaning apart from context? Is Mr. Furuli trying to say that if John wanted to communicate that he meant ‘ruler’ by using arch, he would have to put it into a plural? If he is, see Luke 20:20 to find arch in the singular meaning ‘ruler.’ Also, Josephus shuts down this line of reasoning. Nor does he state the significance of arch qualified by ‘every’ or the ‘genitive.’ Is he trying to say this is the only way arch can mean ‘ruler?’ I don’t know. But this statement could contradict Mr. Stafford’s argument in number 5 above. A couple examples from Josephus again shows his line of reasoning faulty: Antiquities 14:490, “d autws h tou assamwnaiou arch...” (And thus did the government of the Asamoneans)& 16:46 (for your government over all is one), “h gar umetrera kata pantwn arch genomenh...” This can also be shown from other authors (Philo, Apocrypha, OT Pseudepigrapha, and secular writtings).
3. How can “government” or more properly ‘ruler’ “…be out of the question…” for Col. 1:18? The context of Col. 1:15-18 is that Christ is preeminent and that he holds all things together. ‘Ruler’ fits the context and makes perfect sense. Furuli references Gen. 49:3 and Deut. 21:17 as if it makes some point. But, the context of Gen. 49:3 and Deut. 21:17 is the first son born.
4. I agree that Rev. 3:14 is parallel to Col. 1:15, but I take both genitives of each verse to be objective. If they are objective genitives, Col. 1:15 could be translated as ‘the Firstborn over all creation’ and Rev. 3:14 could be translated as ‘the Ruler over God’s creation.’ So also, Rev. 1:5 could be translated “the Ruler (arcwn) over the Kings of the Earth.” Notice the parallelism to Rev. 3:14. Jesus in the Ruler and Faithful Witness! Referring to Rev. 3:14, Mr. Furuli states that, “The sense government, authority is hardly fitting here…” Why, because Mr. Furuli says so? He continues, “…the only other meaning which is found in the N.T., namely, ‘beginning’, then Jesus is described as ‘the beginning of God’s creation,’ and this a part of creation.” Not necessarily, since these titles of Jesus in Rev. 3:14 are active, beginning would mean ‘the one who starts it.’ Besides, why is ‘beginning’ the only other meaning which is found in the New Testament? Is he stating that other meanings of arch are not available to John? Is there a rule somewhere that states there are only three meanings to arch in the New Testament? I always thought context determined meaning! It is obvious from this line of reasoning that Mr. Furuli does not want arch to mean Ruler or Origin in Rev. 3:14.
2. Mr. Furuli does not tell us why arch in the singular or plural is significant. In those contexts, the ARCHAI are a multitude of false, spiritual entities at war with Christ and the saints or world rulers. They are always a multiplicity. But if Rev. 3:14 is taken as ‘ruler,’ it would stand in beautiful contrast to the multitude of false arcai of the world and spiritual realms. Since when does the number of a noun have any relation to its meaning apart from context? Is Mr. Furuli trying to say that if John wanted to communicate that he meant ‘ruler’ by using arch, he would have to put it into a plural? If he is, see Luke 20:20 to find arch in the singular meaning ‘ruler.’ Also, Josephus shuts down this line of reasoning. Nor does he state the significance of arch qualified by ‘every’ or the ‘genitive.’ Is he trying to say this is the only way arch can mean ‘ruler?’ I don’t know. But this statement could contradict Mr. Stafford’s argument in number 5 above. A couple examples from Josephus again shows his line of reasoning faulty: Antiquities 14:490, “d autws h tou assamwnaiou arch...” (And thus did the government of the Asamoneans)& 16:46 (for your government over all is one), “h gar umetrera kata pantwn arch genomenh...” This can also be shown from other authors (Philo, Apocrypha, OT Pseudepigrapha, and secular writtings).
3. How can “government” or more properly ‘ruler’ “…be out of the question…” for Col. 1:18? The context of Col. 1:15-18 is that Christ is preeminent and that he holds all things together. ‘Ruler’ fits the context and makes perfect sense. Furuli references Gen. 49:3 and Deut. 21:17 as if it makes some point. But, the context of Gen. 49:3 and Deut. 21:17 is the first son born.
4. I agree that Rev. 3:14 is parallel to Col. 1:15, but I take both genitives of each verse to be objective. If they are objective genitives, Col. 1:15 could be translated as ‘the Firstborn over all creation’ and Rev. 3:14 could be translated as ‘the Ruler over God’s creation.’ So also, Rev. 1:5 could be translated “the Ruler (arcwn) over the Kings of the Earth.” Notice the parallelism to Rev. 3:14. Jesus in the Ruler and Faithful Witness! Referring to Rev. 3:14, Mr. Furuli states that, “The sense government, authority is hardly fitting here…” Why, because Mr. Furuli says so? He continues, “…the only other meaning which is found in the N.T., namely, ‘beginning’, then Jesus is described as ‘the beginning of God’s creation,’ and this a part of creation.” Not necessarily, since these titles of Jesus in Rev. 3:14 are active, beginning would mean ‘the one who starts it.’ Besides, why is ‘beginning’ the only other meaning which is found in the New Testament? Is he stating that other meanings of arch are not available to John? Is there a rule somewhere that states there are only three meanings to arch in the New Testament? I always thought context determined meaning! It is obvious from this line of reasoning that Mr. Furuli does not want arch to mean Ruler or Origin in Rev. 3:14.
5. For someone who is always trying to get out of ‘rules,’ it is surprising to find him try to make one. See his discussions on Jn 1:1 and Tit. 2:13 on how desperate he is to eliminate valid rules. Now he will probably deny he is making a rule. But he does not have to use the word rule. Notice the language he is using: ‘always denotes a beginning.’ What if this rule is broken on a regular basis? His ‘always’ disappears. Could it be he is for rules if it is against the Deity of Christ and against rules if they are for the Deity of Christ? (Rhetorical question) Rev. 3:14 is an example that refutes his rule. Why should the analysis of arch be limited to the New Testament? Mr. Stafford doesn’t when he is dealing with other passages. His rule is more coincidence rather than some statistical discovery. Here is a list of occurrences in the LXX of arch followed by a genitive expression: Gen. 1:16, 40:20; Ex. 6:25; Psalm 109:3, 136:6; Prov. 17:14; Jer. 22:6; Dan. 6:26, 7:12, 11:41; Amos 6:11; Ob. 20; Mic. 3:1. As can be seen from these passages, a genitive expression is not a contextual marker for arch to mean ‘beginning.’ Here are some examples outside of the New Testament: Sirach 11:3 kai arch glukasmatwn o karpos auths (but her fruit is the chief of sweet things), Sirach 39:26, Enoch 6:8, Sibylline Oracles 3:784, 8:143, Life of Adam and Eve 39:2, Philo Creation 57, 67, Confu 193, Heir 62, Dream 2.284, 2.290. Here is a very interesting statement by Philo in Heir 172, “arch men gar genesws o qeos (for God is the beginning of all generation). I think we can see that Mr. Stafford’s grammatical observation (rule) is non-existent. In Thucydides Historiae, arch is used 129 times. Some type of authority is the meaning in 100 of the uses. That is approximately 78%. All kinds of grammar is used: nominative, dative, genitive, and accusative. Isocrates in Panegyricus section 72 line 3 uses arch modified by a genitive, and it still meant sovereignty. In Plato Leges page 809 section a line 1, he used arch modified by a genitive and it means ruler. A true point of grammar that Mr. Stafford misses is that a genitive of agency is rare. As D.B. Wallace stated in his grammar, Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics, page 126, “The genitive will normally be related to an adjective that (a) is substantival (i.e., in place of a noun), (b) ends in –tos, and (c) implies a passive idea.” One would expect to find upo with the genitive.
6. Please disregard what I wrote in the previous revision(1) of this paper. Thanks to Kaz and Luis, I have found my error. The following is my correction. Mr. Stafford’s quote from BAGD has been upgraded from “linguistically possible” to “linguistically probable” in the BDAG third edition. The questions to ask here are why this upgrade to 'probable,' and how does he define arch in Rev. 3:14? So I wrote Professor Danker and said, “Third, the reason I am writing you is to ask why you made a certain change in one of the entries of your lexicon. It is under the word arch. In your previous edition, you had referenced Rev. 3:14 and said that the gloss ‘beginning’ was possible. In your new edition, you changed the word ‘possible’ to ‘probable’. When I compare the two editions of the lexicon, I can not figure out what the reasoning is behind the change. Could you tell me what the reason was for the change? I have always thought that arch in that passage meant ‘origin’ or ‘ruler’. If you think beginning is the meaning there, do you think it is teaching that Jesus is created by God?” Professor Danker wrote back, “The term “possible” is rather vague. “Probable”, therefore, is the stronger term, when supporting evidence can be offered. Hence I used the term “probable” in connection with the item you note. Linguistic support can be given for the interpretation. This is precisely what I stated, for it was only fair that I alert the user of the lexicon to a responsibly offered alternative. In response to your further query, I do not think that Rev. 3:14 teaches that Jesus Christ is “created by God.: Christ is given equal status with the Father in responsibility for the existence of everything.” I should have asked what the supporting evidence was explicitly because I was wanting that also. I was assuming this information would be included in his answer to me. I assumed wrong. I found that I had misunderstood the entry in the lexicon and Professor Danker's letter to me. I had thought that the entry in his lexicon meant that the meaning of arch in Rev. 3:14 was first created. Now I understand from his letter it was a linguistic alternative not equative with first cause. I thought he meant an alternative way to translate arch. I was wrong. So he wasn't saying first created was the probable meaning to Rev. 3:14. I needed more information, so I wrote him a second time and asked, “Since you do not think that Rev. 3:14 teaches that Jesus Christ is created, what do you think is the proper interpretation of “the beginning of God's creation”? He wrote back and stated, “My definition of “beginning” in Rev. 3:14 is indicated by the bold Roman font “the first cause.” The gloss “beginning” is to be understood in that sense.” So his interpretation of arch in Rev. 3:14 is first cause by being placed under arch (3) in the lexicon. I think this means to us who are trying to understand Rev. 3:14 that it boils down to the data with the interpretation of this passage.
7. Again I say that his rule is coincidence. Here is a list from the LXX of ARCHE denoting ‘government’ and ‘ruler’ without “…other expressions denoting “power” or “authority…”: Gen. 1:18, 40:13, 20,21, 41:13; Ex. 6:25; Deut. 17:18, 20; 1 Chron. 26:10; Neh. 9:17; Psalm 109:3, 138:17; Isa. 9:5-6, 10:10, 41:27, 42:10; Jer. 13:21, 30:2; Ezk. 29:15; Dan. 6:26, 7:12, 11:41; Hos. 1:11; Amos 6:1; Obad. 20; Mic. 3:1; Naham 1:6, 3:8. In Thucydides in historiae book 1 chapter 128 section 4 and line 1, there is an example of arch meaning beginning in the presence of words of authority. Oops, there goes another Stafford rule. Based on these examples, arch can mean ‘ruler’ in Rev. 3:14. Actually, any nuance available to an author at any given point in history is possible. The question is what is probable.
6. Please disregard what I wrote in the previous revision(1) of this paper. Thanks to Kaz and Luis, I have found my error. The following is my correction. Mr. Stafford’s quote from BAGD has been upgraded from “linguistically possible” to “linguistically probable” in the BDAG third edition. The questions to ask here are why this upgrade to 'probable,' and how does he define arch in Rev. 3:14? So I wrote Professor Danker and said, “Third, the reason I am writing you is to ask why you made a certain change in one of the entries of your lexicon. It is under the word arch. In your previous edition, you had referenced Rev. 3:14 and said that the gloss ‘beginning’ was possible. In your new edition, you changed the word ‘possible’ to ‘probable’. When I compare the two editions of the lexicon, I can not figure out what the reasoning is behind the change. Could you tell me what the reason was for the change? I have always thought that arch in that passage meant ‘origin’ or ‘ruler’. If you think beginning is the meaning there, do you think it is teaching that Jesus is created by God?” Professor Danker wrote back, “The term “possible” is rather vague. “Probable”, therefore, is the stronger term, when supporting evidence can be offered. Hence I used the term “probable” in connection with the item you note. Linguistic support can be given for the interpretation. This is precisely what I stated, for it was only fair that I alert the user of the lexicon to a responsibly offered alternative. In response to your further query, I do not think that Rev. 3:14 teaches that Jesus Christ is “created by God.: Christ is given equal status with the Father in responsibility for the existence of everything.” I should have asked what the supporting evidence was explicitly because I was wanting that also. I was assuming this information would be included in his answer to me. I assumed wrong. I found that I had misunderstood the entry in the lexicon and Professor Danker's letter to me. I had thought that the entry in his lexicon meant that the meaning of arch in Rev. 3:14 was first created. Now I understand from his letter it was a linguistic alternative not equative with first cause. I thought he meant an alternative way to translate arch. I was wrong. So he wasn't saying first created was the probable meaning to Rev. 3:14. I needed more information, so I wrote him a second time and asked, “Since you do not think that Rev. 3:14 teaches that Jesus Christ is created, what do you think is the proper interpretation of “the beginning of God's creation”? He wrote back and stated, “My definition of “beginning” in Rev. 3:14 is indicated by the bold Roman font “the first cause.” The gloss “beginning” is to be understood in that sense.” So his interpretation of arch in Rev. 3:14 is first cause by being placed under arch (3) in the lexicon. I think this means to us who are trying to understand Rev. 3:14 that it boils down to the data with the interpretation of this passage.
7. Again I say that his rule is coincidence. Here is a list from the LXX of ARCHE denoting ‘government’ and ‘ruler’ without “…other expressions denoting “power” or “authority…”: Gen. 1:18, 40:13, 20,21, 41:13; Ex. 6:25; Deut. 17:18, 20; 1 Chron. 26:10; Neh. 9:17; Psalm 109:3, 138:17; Isa. 9:5-6, 10:10, 41:27, 42:10; Jer. 13:21, 30:2; Ezk. 29:15; Dan. 6:26, 7:12, 11:41; Hos. 1:11; Amos 6:1; Obad. 20; Mic. 3:1; Naham 1:6, 3:8. In Thucydides in historiae book 1 chapter 128 section 4 and line 1, there is an example of arch meaning beginning in the presence of words of authority. Oops, there goes another Stafford rule. Based on these examples, arch can mean ‘ruler’ in Rev. 3:14. Actually, any nuance available to an author at any given point in history is possible. The question is what is probable.
8. Let’s take a look at these parallels.
Matt. 24:8- Yes, this is grammatically parallel, but arch as a noun is being used differently. arch in Rev. 3:14 is being used as a title. Matt. 24:8 is not. arch in Rev. 3:14 is active. Matt. 24:8 is passive. Context will determine the meaning. In my opinion, I have established that arch with a “genitive expression” is not relevant. Again, let’s put some of the meanings of arch into this verse and see which one best fits the context: ruler, extremities, top, head, band, sum, or beginning. I think it is a pretty easy choice.
Mark 13:19- This is not a grammatical parallel for arch is the object of a preposition, and apo arch is used as a temporal expression. arch as a noun is being used differently. ARCHE in Rev. 3:14 is being used as a title. Mark 13:19 is not. arch in Rev. 3:14 is active. Mark 13:19 is passive. Again, let’s put some of the meanings of arch into this verse and see which one best fits the context: ruler, extremities, top, head, band, sum, or beginning. I think it is a pretty easy choice.
John 2:11- Same as Mark 13:19
Philip. 4:15- Same as Mark 13:19
Heb. 3:14- Same as Matt. 24:8
Heb. 6:1- Same as Matt. 24:8
Heb. 7:3- Same as Matt. 24:8
2 Pet. 3:4- Same as Mark 13:19
Also, of these examples, not one has arch referring to a person!
Mr. Stafford’s lists of scriptures from the LXX in note 119 on page 239 are the same type of verses he listed in the New Testament. They have to same explanation. They are not parallel to Rev. 3:14.
9. First, I do not see Rev. 3:14 as an allusion to Prov. 8:22. Wisdom is just a simple personification as in the previous chapters of Proverbs. arch is being used in two different ways in these passages. In Rev. 3:14, arch is a (event word) title for Christ. In Prov. 8:22, arch is a passive use. Put some of the other meanings in these contexts and you’ll find that ‘ruler’ or ‘source’ fit perfectly in Rev. 3:14 and beginning fits perfectly in Prov. 8:22. Second, Burney’s interpretation is completely different than that of Mr. Stafford. Burney may have saw a connection here with Proverbs 8:22, but his understanding of the Proverbs passage, when quoted more fully, damages the Jehovah’s Witness position. Burney states on page 162 that, “…the ground-meaning of KANA…,” referring to wisdom as, “…in the case of wisdom by accumulating it through mental application.” The NWT states, “produced me” in Prov. 8:22. Burney interprets ‘production of wisdom’ as meaning in the sense of accumulation such through mental application. Burney states on page 168 of his article ‘Christ As The ARCHE Of Creation’ in JTS 27, “…Wisdom being regarded as one of the works of God, though indefinitely anterior to all other words which she was instrumental in calling into being. It would, however, be legitimate to render, ‘the antecedent of his works’- a rendering which serves merely to state the priority of Wisdom to the words of God, without necessarily placing her in the same category with them. This rendering appears to be preferable, as preserving a measure of ambiguity which is inherent in the original…We arrive, then, at the following rendering for the verse as a whole:- The Lord begat me as the beginning of His way, The antecedent of His works, of old.” Then on page 172 he stated, “The answer is to be found in the consideration that human terminology, framed to describe events happening in time, is inadequate to the description of eternal facts.” In regards to Rev. 3:14, let’s finish the quote where Stafford finishes it, “There is every reason to suppose that ARCHE is here used with all the fullness of meaning which St Paul extracts from reshith-Beginning, Sum-total, Head, First-fruits. This at any rate fits in with the statement of xxi 6, EGW TO A KAI TO W, H ARCHE KAI TO TELOS, where TO TELOS embodies the interpretation of berreshith ‘into him’ as the goal.”
10. Job 40:15 is the context to verse 19. It states, “But look at Behemoth, my creature, just as you are.”(NJB) Verse 19 states, “He is the first of the works of God. His Maker threatened him with the sword,…” This is neither ‘striking’ nor parallel to Rev. 3:14. The context is the Behemoth as made by God in verse 15. Then in verse 19 itself is a reference to the Maker of Behemoth. In Rev. 3:14, arch is an active title. In Job 40:15, 19, arch is passive and the object of eimi.
Matt. 24:8- Yes, this is grammatically parallel, but arch as a noun is being used differently. arch in Rev. 3:14 is being used as a title. Matt. 24:8 is not. arch in Rev. 3:14 is active. Matt. 24:8 is passive. Context will determine the meaning. In my opinion, I have established that arch with a “genitive expression” is not relevant. Again, let’s put some of the meanings of arch into this verse and see which one best fits the context: ruler, extremities, top, head, band, sum, or beginning. I think it is a pretty easy choice.
Mark 13:19- This is not a grammatical parallel for arch is the object of a preposition, and apo arch is used as a temporal expression. arch as a noun is being used differently. ARCHE in Rev. 3:14 is being used as a title. Mark 13:19 is not. arch in Rev. 3:14 is active. Mark 13:19 is passive. Again, let’s put some of the meanings of arch into this verse and see which one best fits the context: ruler, extremities, top, head, band, sum, or beginning. I think it is a pretty easy choice.
John 2:11- Same as Mark 13:19
Philip. 4:15- Same as Mark 13:19
Heb. 3:14- Same as Matt. 24:8
Heb. 6:1- Same as Matt. 24:8
Heb. 7:3- Same as Matt. 24:8
2 Pet. 3:4- Same as Mark 13:19
Also, of these examples, not one has arch referring to a person!
Mr. Stafford’s lists of scriptures from the LXX in note 119 on page 239 are the same type of verses he listed in the New Testament. They have to same explanation. They are not parallel to Rev. 3:14.
9. First, I do not see Rev. 3:14 as an allusion to Prov. 8:22. Wisdom is just a simple personification as in the previous chapters of Proverbs. arch is being used in two different ways in these passages. In Rev. 3:14, arch is a (event word) title for Christ. In Prov. 8:22, arch is a passive use. Put some of the other meanings in these contexts and you’ll find that ‘ruler’ or ‘source’ fit perfectly in Rev. 3:14 and beginning fits perfectly in Prov. 8:22. Second, Burney’s interpretation is completely different than that of Mr. Stafford. Burney may have saw a connection here with Proverbs 8:22, but his understanding of the Proverbs passage, when quoted more fully, damages the Jehovah’s Witness position. Burney states on page 162 that, “…the ground-meaning of KANA…,” referring to wisdom as, “…in the case of wisdom by accumulating it through mental application.” The NWT states, “produced me” in Prov. 8:22. Burney interprets ‘production of wisdom’ as meaning in the sense of accumulation such through mental application. Burney states on page 168 of his article ‘Christ As The ARCHE Of Creation’ in JTS 27, “…Wisdom being regarded as one of the works of God, though indefinitely anterior to all other words which she was instrumental in calling into being. It would, however, be legitimate to render, ‘the antecedent of his works’- a rendering which serves merely to state the priority of Wisdom to the words of God, without necessarily placing her in the same category with them. This rendering appears to be preferable, as preserving a measure of ambiguity which is inherent in the original…We arrive, then, at the following rendering for the verse as a whole:- The Lord begat me as the beginning of His way, The antecedent of His works, of old.” Then on page 172 he stated, “The answer is to be found in the consideration that human terminology, framed to describe events happening in time, is inadequate to the description of eternal facts.” In regards to Rev. 3:14, let’s finish the quote where Stafford finishes it, “There is every reason to suppose that ARCHE is here used with all the fullness of meaning which St Paul extracts from reshith-Beginning, Sum-total, Head, First-fruits. This at any rate fits in with the statement of xxi 6, EGW TO A KAI TO W, H ARCHE KAI TO TELOS, where TO TELOS embodies the interpretation of berreshith ‘into him’ as the goal.”
10. Job 40:15 is the context to verse 19. It states, “But look at Behemoth, my creature, just as you are.”(NJB) Verse 19 states, “He is the first of the works of God. His Maker threatened him with the sword,…” This is neither ‘striking’ nor parallel to Rev. 3:14. The context is the Behemoth as made by God in verse 15. Then in verse 19 itself is a reference to the Maker of Behemoth. In Rev. 3:14, arch is an active title. In Job 40:15, 19, arch is passive and the object of eimi.
11. Mr. Stafford has not proved distinct beings only distinct persons. This is a passage I would use as a proof text to refute Sabellianism. He comes to this passage with Henotheist (sub-category of polytheism) presuppositions. I of course come to this passage with Monotheistic and Trinitarian presuppositions.
EXEGESIS FOR REV. 3:14
A literal translation of this passage is grammatically ambiguous (decoding linguistic elements is not enough). Therefore we have to search for the author’s intended meaning also through contextual inference.
Delling in Kittel’s Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament on page 479 made an important statement that needs to be kept in mind while looking at occurrences of arch, “arch always signifies “primacy,” whether in time “beginning,” principium or in rank: “power,” “dominion,” “office.” As a foundation, Rev. 3:14 needs to be put in the context of the entire book of Revelation. In 1:5, Jesus is called the (Ruler) arcwn over the Earth’s Kings and the faithful witness. The parallelism is unmistakable. Notice also ‘the Faithful and True Witness and ‘the Faithful Witness.’ arcwn obviously overlaps in meaning with arch as can be seen from a check of the standard lexicons. In 1:17, Jesus is “The First and The Last” as in 2:8 and 22:13. YHWH in the Old Testament has this name in Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12. In Rev. 5:13-14, a picture is given of “One sitting on the throne” and “to the Lamb” receiving worship. In 22:13, Jesus is given three names: The First and The Last, The Beginning and The End, and The Alpha and The Omega. This gives Jesus the same names of the Almighty as in 1:8 and 21:6. This is the high Christology of Revelation.
What we have in Rev. 3:14 are three event words which are titles for Jesus. The first title is The Amen. This is most probably the same title of YHWH in Isaiah 65:16. His second title is “The Faithful and True Witness.” His third title is “The Ruler.” It could also mean ‘Source.’ Ruler or Source are both (event words) titles in this context. Beginning does not fit the immediate or the wider context. Mr. Stafford wants arch to have a passive use. By doing this, he destroys the parallelism of the titles. I understand the genitive in Rev. 3:14 to be objective. Therefore, as D.B. Wallace stated in his grammar, Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics, page 116, “the genitive substantive functions semantically as the direct object of the verbal idea implicit in the head noun.”
In certain examples where beginning is a possibility, I think that we would find that more of an idea of ‘chief things’ would be more proper. For example, in Mark 1:1, ARCHE could mean ‘chief things’, ‘essentials’, or ‘summary.’ See Allen Wikgren in JBL ARCHE TOU EUAGGELIOU pages 11-20 (need vol and date).
EXEGESIS FOR REV. 3:14
A literal translation of this passage is grammatically ambiguous (decoding linguistic elements is not enough). Therefore we have to search for the author’s intended meaning also through contextual inference.
Delling in Kittel’s Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament on page 479 made an important statement that needs to be kept in mind while looking at occurrences of arch, “arch always signifies “primacy,” whether in time “beginning,” principium or in rank: “power,” “dominion,” “office.” As a foundation, Rev. 3:14 needs to be put in the context of the entire book of Revelation. In 1:5, Jesus is called the (Ruler) arcwn over the Earth’s Kings and the faithful witness. The parallelism is unmistakable. Notice also ‘the Faithful and True Witness and ‘the Faithful Witness.’ arcwn obviously overlaps in meaning with arch as can be seen from a check of the standard lexicons. In 1:17, Jesus is “The First and The Last” as in 2:8 and 22:13. YHWH in the Old Testament has this name in Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12. In Rev. 5:13-14, a picture is given of “One sitting on the throne” and “to the Lamb” receiving worship. In 22:13, Jesus is given three names: The First and The Last, The Beginning and The End, and The Alpha and The Omega. This gives Jesus the same names of the Almighty as in 1:8 and 21:6. This is the high Christology of Revelation.
What we have in Rev. 3:14 are three event words which are titles for Jesus. The first title is The Amen. This is most probably the same title of YHWH in Isaiah 65:16. His second title is “The Faithful and True Witness.” His third title is “The Ruler.” It could also mean ‘Source.’ Ruler or Source are both (event words) titles in this context. Beginning does not fit the immediate or the wider context. Mr. Stafford wants arch to have a passive use. By doing this, he destroys the parallelism of the titles. I understand the genitive in Rev. 3:14 to be objective. Therefore, as D.B. Wallace stated in his grammar, Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics, page 116, “the genitive substantive functions semantically as the direct object of the verbal idea implicit in the head noun.”
In certain examples where beginning is a possibility, I think that we would find that more of an idea of ‘chief things’ would be more proper. For example, in Mark 1:1, ARCHE could mean ‘chief things’, ‘essentials’, or ‘summary.’ See Allen Wikgren in JBL ARCHE TOU EUAGGELIOU pages 11-20 (need vol and date).
Another interesting point is that whenever arch refers to a person, most of the time it has something to do with rule, dominion, or authority of some type(of course, only persons can be rulers). This is backed up from the LXX, New Testament, and secular usage. J.R. Mantey in Depth Explorations In The New Testament on page 100 stated, “Outside the NT, we found the following ideas expressed by the word:Beginning or Source, eighty-seven times; authority, forty times; office, thirty-six times; ruler or commander, thirty-two times; realm or dominion, eighteen times. A few samplings of the usage as ruler are: Plutarch, Morals II.151F, “he held the greatest and the most perfect position as a ruler.” In Lives VIII, Sertorius 10, “They were altogether lacking in a commander of great reputation.” In Morals V.75.E, “For it is not fitting for the Ruler and Lord of all to listen to anyone.” In Diodorus Siculus II Bk.3.5.1, “him the multitudes take for their king.” In Philo, Alleg. III.58, “for the sake of being a ruler with governors”; 66, ”Amalek, the ruler of nations.” Ruler in Rev. 3:14 also comports well with one of the most famous Messianic prophecies Isaiah 9:5-6 where the LXX uses arch for Christ’s rule. I end with a quote from Louw & Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon page 779, entry 89.16, “one who or that which constitutes an initial cause – ‘first cause, origin.’ H ARCHE THS KTISEOS TOU THOU ‘the origin of what God has created’ Rev. 3:14. It is also possible to understand arch in Rev. 3:14 as meaning ‘ruler’ (see 37.56).” One interesting historical side-note, Rev. 3:14 never comes up during the Arian controversy.
The Centrality of Christ
15 He is the image of the invisible God,the firstborn over all creation.[i]
16 For everything was created by Him,
in heaven and on earth,
the visible and the invisible,
whether thrones or dominions
or rulers or authorities—
all things have been created through Him and for Him.
17 He is before all things,
and by Him all things hold together.
18 He is also the head of the body, the church;
He is the beginning,
the firstborn from the dead,
so that He might come to have
first place in everything.
19 For God was pleased to have
all His fullness dwell in Him,
20 and through Him to reconcile
everything to Himself
by making peace
through the blood of His cross[]—
whether things on earth or things in heaven.
21 Once you were alienated and hostile in your minds because of your evil actions. 22 But now He has reconciled you by His physical body[] through His death, to present you holy, faultless, and blameless before Him— 23 if indeed you remain grounded and steadfast in the faith and are not shifted away from the hope of the gospel that you heard. This gospel has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and I, Paul, have become a servant of it.
For everything was created by Him, Therefore, He was not created.....
It means that there is nothing—absolutely nothing—in heaven or on earth, physical or spiritual, that is not made by Christ (John 1:3), bought by Christ (1 Cor. 6:20), or belonging to Christ (Rom. 11:36). It is all His
preeminence of Christ. “Preeminence” is a lofty word. It means the highest place of ascendency, above all, over all, surpassing all, to the point that nothing and no one else can even come close.
According to Scripture, God’s ultimate intention and purpose is “that in all things [Christ] must have preeminence” (Col. 1:18) – not just in you and me, not just in the Ekklesia, but in all creation. And, if we trace the history of God’s dealings with man throughout the Bible, we see that God has been steadily and surely working towards this goal. “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). He MUST increase, therefore, He WILL increase, and He IS increasing. Likewise, you MUST decrease, therefore you WILL decrease, and you ARE decreasing. This is not a thing to be frightened over. With less of me, there is more of Him. With more of Him, there is less of me. It is a wonderful thing!
preeminence of Christ. “Preeminence” is a lofty word. It means the highest place of ascendency, above all, over all, surpassing all, to the point that nothing and no one else can even come close.
According to Scripture, God’s ultimate intention and purpose is “that in all things [Christ] must have preeminence” (Col. 1:18) – not just in you and me, not just in the Ekklesia, but in all creation. And, if we trace the history of God’s dealings with man throughout the Bible, we see that God has been steadily and surely working towards this goal. “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). He MUST increase, therefore, He WILL increase, and He IS increasing. Likewise, you MUST decrease, therefore you WILL decrease, and you ARE decreasing. This is not a thing to be frightened over. With less of me, there is more of Him. With more of Him, there is less of me. It is a wonderful thing!
- Romans 8:29
·God knew them before he made the world [L For those whom he foreknew…], ·and he chose them […he also predestined/chose beforehand] to be ·like [molded to the pattern of; conformed to the image of] his Son so that Jesus would be the firstborn [C the preeminent one, but also indicating others will follow] of many brothers and sisters [C Jesus’ resurrection confirms that his followers will also share in God’s glory].
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations - Hebrews 1:3
The Son ·reflects [orradiates; shines forth] the glory of God [John 1:14] and ·shows exactly what God is like [L is the exact representation/imprint/stamp of his being/essence/nature]. He ·holds everything together [sustains/upholds all things] with his powerful word. When the Son ·made people clean from their [L provided purification/cleansing for] sins [9:14], he sat down at the right ·side [L hand; C the most honored position beside a king; Ps. 110:1] of ·God, the Great One in heaven [L the Majesty/Preeminence in the highest places; C a Jewish way to avoid saying the divine name of God].
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Keiw
Well-Known Member
No one is predestined. All can choose to obey and repent, Few do though.--John 3:16--everyone exercising faith in Jesus might not be destroyed. The real Jesus.
Runningman
Active Member
In most of the Septuagint and New Testament, arche is translated as a beginning point. The odds aren’t in your favor. Revelation 3:14 is compatible with scripture about Jesus being created. He’s a human after all. Decades later they kept calling him a man after he was resurrected and taken to heaven.
Many years after the fact, John wrote Revelation and Paul wrote this:
1 Timothy 2
5For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
Similar threads
- Locked
