Next Verse >>

The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:

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.”

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.      

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).

Jehovah's Witnesses

By James Stewart

An Answer to Stafford and Furuli on Rev. 3:14 (Revision 1)

The purpose of this revision is to expand the database for the use of   arch.  In my initial paper, the database was the LXX and the GNT.   I am now expanding that database to include uses of arch from the TLG database, OT apocrypha, OT pseudepigrapha, Apostolic Fathers, Philo, and Josephus.  This will hammer a few more nails in the coffin of Stafford and Furuli’s exegesis of Rev. 3:14.  There will also be a response to any new arguments in Mr. Stafford’s third edition of his book.  I will also correct one of the conclusions I made in my exegesis, above..

After working through the TLG database, OT apocrypha, OT pseudepigrapha, Apostolic Fathers, Philo, and Josephus, my conclusion is contextual effects and author are the determining factors for meaning not the rules invented by Stafford and Furuli.  For example, Josephus uses the gloss of ‘authority’ in the majority (79%) of his uses of arch.  The gloss of ‘beginning’ is used 10%.  The gloss of ‘origin’ is used 2.9%.  If one were to combine Josephus with the N.T., you can see how the data would be biased toward ‘authority’ if you were trying to make a rule.  The rule would be wrong because of the bias.  Other authors use some type of gloss of ‘beginning’ for the majority of their uses.  For this reason, I reject Stafford and Furuli’s rules.  Of course they will say that they did not make any rules, but as can be read below, they just did not use the word ‘rule.’  (A rose by any other name is still a rose)

It is very important for Stafford and Furuli to make Rev. 3:14 teach that Jesus is created.  If Jesus is not created, their whole system is error.  “You pore over the scriptures, believing that in them you can find eternal life; it is these scriptures that testify to me, and yet you refuse to come to me to receive life!” Jn 5:39-40 NJB If you have the wrong Jesus, you will not find life.  In this paper, I will list the arguments by Stafford and Furuli and then refute each one.  I have given my interpretation of Rev. 3:14, above..

Furuli’s arguments:

1. Page 255: “From the above it is clear that arche, in more than 75% of its occurrences, means “beginning.” 
2. Page 255: “…7 of the instances with the meaning “government” are in the plural.  Also, the four singular occurrences with this meaning are qualified, either by “every”…or by a genitive construction.
3. Page 255: “The word arche in Colossians 1:18 stands unqualified as a predication of Jesus, and the meaning “government” seems to be out of the question in this verse.”

4. Page 256: “The application of arche to Jesus in Revelation 3:14 is parallel to its use in Colossians 1:15.  In Revelation 3:14, arche is qualified by “God’s creation,” and this presents a problem for those who support the trinity doctrine.  The sense “government, authority” is hardly fitting here, but if the translator choosed the onl other meaning which is found in the NT, namely, ‘beginning,’...”

Stafford’s arguments:

5. Page 236: “While it is true that arche can have a meaning other than “beginning,” a check of all the occurrences in NT of arche followed by a genitive expression (as we have in Rev 3:14) shows that it always denotes a beginning or first part of something…”
6. Page 237: “Also, we should point out that BAGD went on to say regarding the use of arche in Rev. 3:14, “the [meaning] beginning=first created is linguistically [possible].”
7. Page 236-237: “The final 11 are used to denote “governments” or “rulers,” and with such a meaning are always used with other expressions denoting “power” … or “authority”…”
8. Page 237-240: “Biblical parallels to the grammar of Revelation 3:14.”  Matt. 24:8, Mark 13:19, John 2:11, Philip. 4:15, Heb. 3:14, 5:12, 6:1, 7:3, 2Pet. 3:4, Job 40:19
9. Page 239: “Burney believes Revelation 3:14 is an allusion to Proverbs 8:22, and with reference to the meaning of Revelation 3:14 he states the truth of the matter when he says that exegetes ‘have not a shadow of authority for the limiting in meaning to the source of God’s creation’.”
10. Page 240: “Returning to the issue of parallels to Revelation 3:14, another example that is particularly striking in its similarity to Revelation 3:14 is Job 40:19”
11. Page 240: “Also, in Revelation 3:14 it is said that Jesus is the arche of “God’s creation,” so whatever meaning we give to arche in this verse it does not negate the fact that Jesus is distinct from the being of God.”

FURULI

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 arcaiof 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.

STAFFORD

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. 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.
7. Mr. Stafford’s quote from BAGD is his escape clause from the lexicon’s conclusion.  The problem is that just because something is possible does not make it probable or right.  There are a few meanings to arch that are “linguistically possible” but not probable or intelligible such as ‘extremities’ in this context.  But there is more light from Danker himself on this subject. I contacted Professor Danker by mail December of 2005.  I stated, “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 cannot 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?”  He wrote back to me in January of 2006, “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.”  Also, “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.”  As can be read, BDAG is no longer evidence that can be used by Stafford or other neo-Watchtower Apologists.  I do think that entry in the lexicon is not clearly written, and that is why I wrote him. Hopefully in the future editions of this lexicon, it will be more clearly written.  One cannot be faulted for thinking that entry teaches that Christ is created as it is written now.
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. 
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.

I want to thank Donald Hartley and Michael Svigel without whose help I could not have written this paper.   

Next Verse >>