Recently I was studying the words "the beginning" in John 1:1. In so doing I came to Rev.3:14 -
“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:” (Re 3:14 ASV)
The Greek here for "the beginning" is the same as in John 1:1. I was stunned to find this statement in the highly valued BDAG about this Greek expression:
"Rv 3:14; but the mng. beginning=‘first created’ is linguistically probable"
If you've encountered heretics who deny the deity of Jesus Christ, they will invariably give you this verse and point out that Jesus Christ was the first created being and they may blather on about Greek as if they are scholars.
Now, the BDAG is not alone and apparently as we have the Greek in Rev. 3:14; that could mean "first created". BUT WAIT, context and comparing Scripture with Scripture always rules over a first century Greek construction, which I submit may not even be totally clear to the 21st century experts. The entire force of the NT indicates the Son is eternal, and ALL creation was through him, not all "other" creation.
Heinrich Meyer writes on this question in the 19th century:
"The wording in itself allows only two conceptions: either Christ is designated “the beginning of the creation of God,” i.e., as the first creature of God, as Ew. and Züll. understand it in harmony with the Arians; or, the Lord is regarded as the active principle of the creation. Unconditionally decisive for the latter alternative, which, however, dare not be perverted by a reference to the spiritual new creation, is the fundamental view of Christ, which is expressed in the Apoc., as well as in every other book of the N. T. How could Christ have caused even the present epistle to be written, if he himself were a creature? How could every creature in heaven and earth worship him, if he himself were one of them?"
The American Editor of this German work by Meyer adds the following:
Philippi (Kirch. Glaub., ii. 215): “He is the beginning of the creation; the beginning, and, as such, the principle, the original source, and author, and therefore not himself a creature. So God himself is also called the beginning and the end (Revelation 21:6), and, in like manner, Christ (Revelation 22:13).” Gebhardt (pp. 90–98) refutes the interpretations of Baur, Hoekstra, Köstlin, Weiss, and Ritschl; and states the true interpretation to be as follows: “What exposition is demanded by the laws of language? Without further delay, I reply, that, had the seer written ‘the beginning of the creatures ( κτίσματα) of God,’ or had he written ‘the first, or the first-born, or the first-fruit ( πρῶτος, πρωτότοκος, ἀπαρχή), of the creation of God,’ then the expression might be understood to denote the first created, or that which precedes all things, the first creature in time and rank. But the seer has written ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, which can mean nothing else than principium creationis, the principle, the ἐν ῷ, διʼ οὗ, εἰς ὅ, of the creation of God. After this affirmation of the literal sense, I may say that it finds confirmation in Revelation 1:17-18; Revelation 2:8
“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:” (Re 3:14 ASV)
The Greek here for "the beginning" is the same as in John 1:1. I was stunned to find this statement in the highly valued BDAG about this Greek expression:
"Rv 3:14; but the mng. beginning=‘first created’ is linguistically probable"
If you've encountered heretics who deny the deity of Jesus Christ, they will invariably give you this verse and point out that Jesus Christ was the first created being and they may blather on about Greek as if they are scholars.
Now, the BDAG is not alone and apparently as we have the Greek in Rev. 3:14; that could mean "first created". BUT WAIT, context and comparing Scripture with Scripture always rules over a first century Greek construction, which I submit may not even be totally clear to the 21st century experts. The entire force of the NT indicates the Son is eternal, and ALL creation was through him, not all "other" creation.
Heinrich Meyer writes on this question in the 19th century:
"The wording in itself allows only two conceptions: either Christ is designated “the beginning of the creation of God,” i.e., as the first creature of God, as Ew. and Züll. understand it in harmony with the Arians; or, the Lord is regarded as the active principle of the creation. Unconditionally decisive for the latter alternative, which, however, dare not be perverted by a reference to the spiritual new creation, is the fundamental view of Christ, which is expressed in the Apoc., as well as in every other book of the N. T. How could Christ have caused even the present epistle to be written, if he himself were a creature? How could every creature in heaven and earth worship him, if he himself were one of them?"
The American Editor of this German work by Meyer adds the following:
Philippi (Kirch. Glaub., ii. 215): “He is the beginning of the creation; the beginning, and, as such, the principle, the original source, and author, and therefore not himself a creature. So God himself is also called the beginning and the end (Revelation 21:6), and, in like manner, Christ (Revelation 22:13).” Gebhardt (pp. 90–98) refutes the interpretations of Baur, Hoekstra, Köstlin, Weiss, and Ritschl; and states the true interpretation to be as follows: “What exposition is demanded by the laws of language? Without further delay, I reply, that, had the seer written ‘the beginning of the creatures ( κτίσματα) of God,’ or had he written ‘the first, or the first-born, or the first-fruit ( πρῶτος, πρωτότοκος, ἀπαρχή), of the creation of God,’ then the expression might be understood to denote the first created, or that which precedes all things, the first creature in time and rank. But the seer has written ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, which can mean nothing else than principium creationis, the principle, the ἐν ῷ, διʼ οὗ, εἰς ὅ, of the creation of God. After this affirmation of the literal sense, I may say that it finds confirmation in Revelation 1:17-18; Revelation 2:8
