Rev 3:14. Jesus seems to be claiming to be a creature?

Question

I am reading Rev 3:14 in the Byzantine text, Alexandrian text, and Vulgate. All three seem to be in agreement showing Jesus claiming to be something roughly equating to "the beginning of the creation of God." Only the Aramaic seems to render this differently as "the Chief of the creation of God." but this isn't any better if you are a Trinitarian like myself.

If Jesus is the first of all creation, he still seems to be created - this is quite concerning. Can someone help me reconcile this? If any Catholics can help, that is always preferred and much appreciated.

Answer 1

Revelation 3:14 is sometimes used to claim that the Son of God, the Christ, the Word, the 'Amen', was created. For example, one version takes the liberty of reading, "These are the things that the Amen says... the beginning of the creation BY God." (N.W.T.) Now, if that was what the Greek text said, it would undeniably be showing the Word of God, the Christ, to be a creature created by God. Yet that is a totally corrupt and misleading rendition!

The Greek genitive 'tou theou' means 'OF God' and not 'by God'. For the NWT version to be correct, the genitive would require the proposition 'hupo' which is not found in the verse. All translations that read "the beginning of the creation of God" are perfectly correct. Having cleared that up, it can now be shown that saying Christ is "the beginning of the creation of God" does not mean he was created by God.

The word translated correctly as 'beginning' is 'arche'. Greek authority Grimm-Thayer states, "That which anything begins to be, the origin, active cause." A.T. Robertson says, "Not the first of creatures as the Arians held and the Unitarians do now, but the originating source of creation through whom God works." [Emphasis mine.]

To start to grasp the significance of Christ (as the Word, the Amen) making everything that was made, first get a correct translation of John 1:1-3, especially verse 3, which says the Word "made everything that was made" which logically means he could not have been made himself.

Trinitarians believe that the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. Two 'persons' - not the same person (which would be ditheism)!

This means that Revelation 3:14 is not a problem within the Trinity doctrine, when 'arche' is seen to mean the origin, the active cause, the originating source of creation. He is not the first creature to be created, otherwise Revelation 3:14 would have read that he was the beginning of the creation BY God. It does not, and cannot. Thus, when the meaning of 'arche' (beginning) is understood, the problem for trinitarians disappears.

EDIT on 30/7/24 Have just noticed that shortly after I posted my answer, the Trinity tag was removed. Given that the OP is a self-declared Trinitarian who was struggling with various translations of the text in question, my answer was geared to that, hence going into the matter of the trinity and translation conundrums.

Answer 2

Revelation 3:14b
Τάδε λέγει ὁ Ἀμήν, ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστὸς καὶ (ὁ) ἀληθινός, ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ.
These things says the Amen, the Witness faithful and TRUE, the Beginning of the creation of God.

Consider a similar statement: "Bob's assignment to lead the project was the beginning of its success."

Clearly, Bob isn't "the project"; rather, Bob is the reason, the Cause, of the [outcome of the] project.

Similarly, Christ is the Cause of Creation (c.f. John 1:3), the "chief" not in the sense of the preeminent creature, but the one through whom Creation was accomplished. (That this is the correct sense is backed up by the only instance in Scripture in which "ἀρχὴ" is not translated as "beginning". In Luke 20:20, where it has the form "ἀρχῇ", it is translated "rule" and appears in the context of the Jewish head priests seeking "to deliver [Jesus] to the rule (ἀρχῇ) and to the authority of the governor.")

One of the definitions of the English word "beginning" is "that which begins or originates something; the source or first cause". In light of ἀρχὴ's use in Scripture and what else Scripture has to say about Christ, it seems clear that this sense is an acceptable interpretation of Revelation 3:14b.

Answer 3

According to Thayer's Greek lexicon at Biblehub.com the Greek noun "ἀρχή" in Rev 3:14 is a feminine noun, which can mean many things, depending upon context, including: beginning, origin, first-place, rule/ruler, magistracy/magistrate, power, active cause, corner. The translation challenge is to choose a meaning which does not contradict Scripture anywhere else. Otherwise 2Tim 3:16 is violated. Of the options offered by Thayer, "origin", "rule/ruler", "magistracy", "power", "active cause" are consistent with Scripture, including Jn 1:1-3 and Col 1:15-16.

Answer 4

The solution to the OP’s question is fairly straight forward. One only needs to ask: What does “the creation of God” entail?

For John, what is encapsulated in his view of “creation”? What “realm(s)” of existence are embedded in John’s notion of “creation”? Is the reader to understand John’s mention of “creation” to include with it a reference to a time anterior to that of Gen. 1:1, pressing back into the periapsis of Prov. 8? Or is John’s view of “creation” limited solely to visible/invisible realms to the exclusion of Prov. 8 (cf. 4 Ezra 6:1-38, Jubilees 2:1-10)? Just how expansive is John’s view of “creation”?

In answer to that question, I posit that John’s notion of “creation” only entails the visible/invisible realms to the exclusion of Prov. 8, as is present in John’s very own lexicography (cf. Rev. 4:11 [x2], 5:13, 8:9, 10:6, 14:7). The terms John uses when speaking about “creation” (aside from the one disputed instance, Rev. 3:14) excludes Prov. 8 from the “realm” of possibilities, which is consistent with contemporary Jewish literature of the period (cf. 4 Ezra 6:1-38, Jubilees 2:1-10). That means, when “creation” is spoken of, it is done so without any thought being given to Prov. 8. When John speaks about “creation,” he is having a totally humanistic experience, and speaking only about “creation” as he perceives it. His mind does not wonder too far up into some extraterrestrial third dimension (Prov. 8), but that’s what Arian-minded readers want you to think he’s doing when it comes to texts like Rev. 3:14, because they interpret the text as a reference to Prov. 8:22 (not Gen. 1:1). Talk about “head in the clouds!”

That said, let’s get down to the text in question:

Some interpreters try to connect Rev. 3:14’s usage of αρχη back to Col. 1:18 via verbal assimilation, simply on the basis that Paul instructs his letter be read to the church of Laodicea (Col. 4:16). But I don’t think it’s simply the word αρχη that connects the two sources, though it does play a role. For one, αρχη is a common word, which occurs only once in the entire epistle. And in this one occurance, it's placement is not positioned in the hymn that places on it any primary significance.

Rather, what connects the “proverbial” dots is what Paul states in Col. 1:16 with what John says in Rev. 4:11,

Col. 1:16

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται

“…because all things in the heavens and on the earth were created (ἐκτίσθη) in Him, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers, all things were created (ἔκτισται) through Him and for Him.”

Rev. 4:11

ὅτι σὺ ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ τὸ θέλημά σου ἦσαν καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν

“…because you have created (ἔκτισας) all things, and because of your will they existed and were created (ἐκτίσθησαν).”

The use of the verb “created” (Col. 1:16) is completely consistent with Rev. 4:11’s use. If only for the verb “created,” both texts express the same thing. The very thing God does in Rev. 4:11, He does “in” and “through” His Son in Col. 1:16, thus, both texts are completely consistent with one another from this vantage point. The verb used for “created” (Rev. 4:11) is an active verb, i.e., something that God does. In Col. 1:16, the verb used for “created” is a passive verb, meaning that it is someone other than Christ (i.e., God) who performs the action of the verb. In both texts, it is God who performs the action of the verb, but in the Col. 1:16 text, it is God who performs the action “in” and “through” His Son. What is implicit in Col. 1:16, is explicit in Rev. 4:11. One text tells you plainly that God created “all things,” the other tells you how He did it. Whatever is intended by “all things” in Col. 1:16 is also intended in Rev. 4:11. Christ’s work in creation is co-extensive with the Father’s (cf. 1 Cor. 8:6).

Where Rev. 4:11 underscores that God is the sustainer of all creation; Col. 1:16-17 stresses that very point, but tells us that it is “in” and “through” His Son, that God accomplishes that work.

I like the way Robert Bowman (with the help of Margaret Y. MacDonald) explains Col. 1:16-17,

“The New Testament ascribes this work of providence to the Son, Jesus Christ. Paul states not only that all things ‘were created’ (ektisthe) in the Son, but also that all things ‘have been created’ (ektistai) through and for him (Col. 1:16). Paul uses the same verb but in two different forms. The first form is the aorist, which typically functions as the simple past tense form. The second form is the perfect, which also refers to past activity but typically with an emphasis on present results. ‘The change of verb tense from the aorist to the perfect form indicates creation’s ongoing existence. In other words, not only were all things created but they also remain in their created existence through Christ and for Christ.’ Verse 16, then, indicates that creation stands in an ongoing relation of dependence on the Son for its existence. What seems implicit in verse 16, Paul states explicitly in verse 17: ‘in him all things hold together.’” (Robert Bowman, Putting Jesus in His Place, pp. 195-196)

I would suggest that just as there is an active aspect to Col. 1:16 (God as creator), there is also a passive aspect to Rev. 4:11 (Christ as agent).

If Christ were involved (passively) with God in the work of creation (Rev. 4:11), then the term in Rev. 3:14 (κτίσεως) is best understood in that light, being defined by it’s local context: God as the active agent, working through Christ to bring forth, “the beginning of the creation of God” (cf. Jn. 1:1).

To further demonstrate the point, there are OT allusions coursing through the backdrop of Rev. 4-5. One such allusion is to Ps. 33, hence, the reference to a “new song” (Ps. 33:3 cf. Rev. 5:9); themes of “faithfulness” (Ps. 33:4 cf. Rev. 3:14), but probably even more pertinent: The passive verb (ἐκτίσθησαν) used in Rev. 4:11, is also used in Ps. 33:4-9, and Ps. 148:5-8 when speaking of God bringing forth the heavens and the earth through His very own “word.”

This all goes to point to one thing: When God performed the action in Rev. 3:14 (κτίσεως), it was being done passively through Christ, as it is done in Rev. 4:11 (cf. Col. 1:16). And because Rev. 4:11’s ἔκτισας has a reference point to Gen. 1:1, that then should help identify the reference point of κτίσεως (Rev. 3:14). The terms point to the same point of reference: Genesis.

I think this best explains the titles “the Beginning and the End,” “the First and the Last,” which are playing off the Genesis motif: “the beginning of creation” (cf. 2Pet. 3:4; Mark 10:6, 13:19; Barn. 15:3-4, 4Ezra 6:38, Jubilees 1:26, Assumption of Moses 1:17-18, 12:4).

To help illustrate the point more clearly, consider 4 Ezra (a Jewish work contemporary to the time of the apostle John),

4 Ezra 6:1-9, 38

And he said to me, “At the beginning of the circle of the earth, before the portals of the world were in place,and before the assembled winds blew, and before the rumblings of thunder sounded, and before the flashes of lightning shone, and before the foundations of paradise were laid, and before the beautiful flowers were seen, and before the powers of movement were established, and before the innumerable hosts of angels were gathered together, and before the heights of the air were lifted up, and before the measures of the firmaments were named, and before the footstool of Zion was established, and before the present years were reckoned; and before the imaginations of those who now sin were estranged, and before those who stored up treasures of faith were sealed – then I planned these things, and they were made through me and not through another, just as the end shall come through me and not through another.” And I answered and said, “What will be the dividing of the times? Or when will be the end of the first age and the beginning of the age that follows?” He said to me, “From Abraham to Isaac, because from him were born Jacob and Esau, for Jacob's hand held Esau's heel from the beginning. For Esau is the end of this age, and Jacob is the beginning of the age that follows... I said, “O Lord, thou didst speak at the beginning of creation, and didst say on the first day, ‘Let heaven and earth be made,’ and thy word accomplished the work.”

Not only does 4 Ezra 6 speak of the heavenly hosts as coming into existence at some point during the 7-Day creation period (4 Ezra 6:3), but it also speaks of God creating without the assistance of any other (4 Ezra 6:6), but it further uses the catch phrase, “the beginning of creation,” of which God brought into existence through His “word.” And if you didn’t catch it: Notice the “Beginning and End” motif laced into the backdrop.

Arian-minded readers tend to build their case around texts such as 2 Peter 3:4; Mark 10:6, 13:19 (to this we may also include Barnabas 15:3-4, 4 Ezra 6:38, Jubilees 1:26, Assumption of Moses 1:17-18, 12:4). From this it is suggested that such similarities lend credence to their interpretation of Rev. 3:14, through which Proverbs 8:22 is the (so-to-speak) “proverbial” lens or backdrop. That said, I too think there is a connection with these (sub)set of texts (2 Peter 3:4; Mark 10:6, 13:19; 4 Ezra 6:38, Jubilees 1:26, Assumption of Moses 1:17-18, 12:4) and Rev. 3:14, but unlike them (the Arian-minded), I do not think the author intends a connection be made with Proverbs 8:22. Rather, there is a thematic connection that runs congruent, and reverberates through the background of each of these texts: the Genesis story of creation (Genesis 1-2). There is no reason to point to verbal patterns (i.e., 2 Peter 3:4; Mark 10:6, 13:19; Barn. 15:3-4; 4 Ezra 6:38, Jubilees 1:26, Assumption of Moses 1:17-18, 12:4), only to gloss or nuance over the thematic connections that each of these passages share with one another. After all, it is through this very lens (the creation project) that John relies so heavily on to tell his story (John 1:1-5, 1 John 1:1-2).

One of the real strengths of this interpretation is that it understands the genitive construction in Rev. 3:14 similarly to 2Pet. 3:4; Mark 10:6, 13:19; Barn. 15:3-4; 4 Ezra 6:38, while also carrying the same thematic connections: the Genesis story of creation. The collective phrase—“the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev. 3:14)—is being used in an abstract sense that is intended for us to recall the Genesis account: That is, Jesus is “the beginning of the creation of God”—not that He was the very first of God’s creations, which thereby antedated the Genesis creation (after all, it is the Genesis account he is alluding to)—but as the one “in” (and “through”) whom God called forth the generations into existence. Because all creation began “in” Jesus, He is then therefore the agent “in” whom all creation began, and thereby, can be referred to as, “the Beginning of the creation of God.” He is where “the beginning of the creation of God” (i.e., Genesis) began, “in” Him. Hence the reason of such an attribution, and the reason He is thus referred to as, “the Beginning and the End” (Rev. 22:13): Because all things came through Him (Jn. 1:1-3).

So to give a brief recap: Since Rev. 4:11 is an allusion to Gen. 1:1 (cf. Ps. 33:4-9) and Christ was involved (passively) with God in that work of creation, the term for “creation” used in Rev. 3:14 (κτίσεως) should be understood in that light: God as the active agent, working through Christ to bring forth “the beginning of the creation of God” (cf. Jn. 1:1), hence the reason Rev. 3:14 addresses Him as, “the Beginning of the creation of God” (cf. 2 Peter 3:4, Mark 10:6, 13:19, 4 Ezra 6:38).

If understood in this light, the text isn’t speaking of Christ as “the very first thing God created,” but places Christ’s involvement in the Genesis story of creation in a way that parallels Jn. 1:1. And of course, this all points back to Gen. 1:26 (in two ways),

And God said, “Let Us make humankind in our image and according to our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of heaven, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every moving thing that moves upon the earth.”

(1.) From the vantage point that Gen. 1:26 speaks of someone as God’s vice-regent in bringing forth creation (“Let Us make humankind in Our image”), and

(2.) From the perspective, that the text speaks of the dominion of man over every living creature. Hence, the term αρχη (“beginning”) may very well be dual purposed: To press the readers mind back to Gen. 1:1 (“In the beginning God created”), while also playing off the “dominion” motif in Gen. 1:26–28, hence, the term αρχη is used in ancient inscriptions from the same geographic locale as the letters to whom Smyrna and Laodecia were written, and refers to rulership and dominion: I.Laod 65:3, 83:7; I.Smyr 641:7.

I understand Rev. 3:14 as a passing reference to Genesis, using a common vernacular (or “colloquialism”) with reference to Genesis, thus the reason it is partitive. But I don’t think there’s any special emphasis on it being partitive other than its reference to Genesis. It’s not so much the partitive genitive that is significant, rather, it is the point of reference that is telling.

Given the significance of the term, αρχη (“beginning”), I don’t think “rulership” (alone) quite captures the fullest sense of the word, rather, there is an even broader range in semantic domain that (also) encompasses the “Beginning/End” motif. I posit that Rev. 3:14 is a deliberate use of intertextual “pun” which is intended to orient our minds towards the Genesis story of creation (“the beginning of creation”), where Adam is appointed with dominion (Gen. 1:26-28), using choice language that is otherwise appropriated to individuals to describe their socio-economic status within their local (I.Smyr. 641:7, I.Laod. 65:3, 83:7) and broader (Dio Cassius, Rom. Hist. 39:9:3; 51:21:6) imperial Roman contexts, all the meanwhile maintaining it’s conceptual ties to “the Beginning/the End” motif. This not only makes sense of the partitive genitive, but also carries with it overtones of “rulership” and “dominion” without also missing out on the conceptual ties with the “Beginning/End” motif. After all, it is through the lens of the Genesis story of creation (“the beginning of creation”) which the divine titulars “Beginning/End” originate. They are temporal time markers rooted in God’s sovereign decree in bringing forth the “Beginning” from the “End.” It is in Christ where everything as we know it began, hence, He is “the Beginning.” It is in Him that creation owes it's existence and has it's origin.

Rev. 3:14 is a readaptation of the Genesis prologue, used in application to describe Christ’s cosmological status (cf. Rev. 22:13).

If there is any reference to the letter to the Colossians in Rev. 3:14, then it is rooted in their common reference to the Genesis story of creation. Hence, Paul's reference to the Genesis mandate throughout his letter to the Colossians: “Be fruitful and multiply,” Gen. 1:26-28 (cf. Col. 1:6, 1:10), and “in the image of God,” Gen. 1:26-28 (cf. Col. 1:15, 3:10). What Paul states in Col. 1:6, 1:10, and 1:15 has it's roots and foundation in Gen. 1:26-28.

Welcome back to planet Earth.