The question displays many fatal mistakes made by beginners in learning Greek. One is looking at single words and missing the important grammatical signals and semantics with dictate in what sense a word is to be taken. Another is forcing an impossible definition into a word. This last is a “Straw Man” fallacy since no one says that the word ARCHE means “created.” ARCHE means “beginning” and the particular sense is determined by the semantics and context.
Linking the sense of the word ARCHE as it is used in Rev.1:8 with how it is used in Rev.3:14 is ludicrous. Such argumentation demands both extreme ignorance and extreme prejudice from its hearers!
Second, the phrase “the beginning and end” does not even appear in most bibles at Rev.1:8 because it is recognized by scholars to be a spurious addition to the original Greek text and is “properly omitted from the text” (Vincent’s Word Studies, JFB Commentary). Outside of this spurious insertion, Christ is never called the “beginning and the end” in the Bible.
Next, the context of Rev. 1:8 explicitly excludes Christ grammatically from being the one spoken about. In verses 4,5 we have greetings from three entities: "The One Who Is, Was, and Is Coming" AND "The Seven Spirits" AND "Jesus Christ." The individual given the title "The One Who Is and Was and Is Coming" is clearly identified as the "Alpha and Omega," the "Almighty," and "Lord God." Incontestably, the Alpha and Omega is grammatically differentiated from both Jesus Christ and from the "seven spirits." Therefore, it is impossible for Jesus to be the one addressed in 1:8 as the "Alpha and Omega." In fact, without exception, in John's use of every title describing the Alpha and Omega Jesus is contextually--ontologically and grammatically--differentiated from the Alpha and Omega.
Now, in actuality, Rev. 3:14 clearly teaches that Jesus is a created being! This is because the Greek grammar and context demands it. In the Bible, EVERY occurrence where ARXH is followed by a genitive phrase (of the "..."), that which is called the ARXH is always a member of the group referred to by the genitive. Therefore, the semantic evidence is that in Rev. 3:14 Christ is PART OF the category “creation,” specifically the *first" of God's creations.
When we look at similar constructions, the evidence is overwhelming that Christ is part of creation. Just one grammatical parallel is Job 40:19 which says of Behemoth: "He is the beginning (ARXH) of the ways of God." The partitive genitive shows that Behemoth was one of the created beings.
Can you show me ANY example of this construction where the one called ARXH is not part of the category? IF NOT, THEN ANY FURTHER ARGUMENTS ARE IRRELEVANT! Christ must be a created being.
While Trinitarian scholars claim that the word for "beginning" (ARXH) here can mean "source," or "active cause," this can not be substantiated from the Bible. There are no examples within the Bible (except for attempts to do so with Rev 3:14) where ARXH with a following genitive expression can be shown to clearly mean "cause," "origin" or "source" without the meaning of a beginning of existence. The Bible has other words for "source/cause/author" (RHIZA or AITIOS).
The expositors Greek Testament says: "To understand Rev. 3:14 as meaning that Jesus is 'The active source' of creation, rather than the first created person, one must interpret ARXH as in Greek philosophy and non- Biblical literature."
Further, interpreting ARXH here with the sense of "source" or "cause" of the creation would cause a contradiction with the phrase which follows: "of the creation of the God" (hH KTISIS TOU QEOU). The genitive TOU QEOU identifies it as "God's creation" not the Amen's. "God" is the creator, or the source of all creation. So the grammar does not allow the understanding that the Amen is the "source or "originator" of the creation because the context clearly differentiates the Amen from God.
Even more, interpreting of Rev.3:14 to mean that Christ is the "active source" of creation would contradict how every other explicit scripture describes Christ's role in creation. Christ is ALWAYS described as the agent "through" whom "God created" all things (Jn.1:3; 1Cor.8:6; Col.1:16 NRSV, NAB,NKJV, YLT). First Corinthians 8:6 specifically states that the Father is the "active source" of creation (EX hOU: 'out of ') in contrast with Jesus Christ "through" whom are all things (DIA hOU). Jesus cannot be both the active cause as well as the intermediate agent of creation so ARXH cannot have the meaning of "source" or "originator" at Rev.3:14.
The rules of exegesis demand that we accept explicit verses, the context of Scripture and the meanings of words as used in the Bible. When we do this instead of using the meaning of words from Greek philosophers the evidence clearly shows that the Apostle John considered Jesus Christ to be a created being.
The only reasons for translating ARXH as "source" and "first cause" is to agree with a theological presupposition.
Further, in John's writings he NEVER uses ARCHE to mean power or authority, but ALWAYS with the sense of a "beginning" of something. When John wants to denote "ruler" he uses a different word ARXWN (Rev.1:5).
Although ARCHE can carry the secondary sense of ruler or authority it only does so in the NT when it is plural and/or it appears with the words for "power" (EXOUSIA/DUNAMIS) See BAGD Lexicon, 1979.
"In the sense of 'dominion' or 'force' arch is always coupled with exousia in the NT."—Kittel; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (cf.Lk.20:20)
Since ARCHE in Rev.3:14 it is neither plural nor marked with EXOUSIA to signify authority, the evidence demands the meaning of "beginning."
Last, arguing for the sense of "primacy" or "rank" does not dispel the fact that Christ is here classed as a creation. ARCHE does have the *connotation* of primacy in "time" and in "rank," however John uses the genitive construction which means that the subject is part of the group. In this case Christ is the primary part of creation.
So, here the grammar conclusively argues for ARCHE to carry the sense of "beginning of creation" and not "beginner or ruler of creation." It denotes that Christ is the first member in the class of creation: the "first of" not "first over" God's creation.
Also most scholars agree that Rev.3:14 is a quote from Pro.8:22 which reads: "The Lord created me, the beginning (ARCHE) of His ways, for His works" (RS, NRSV, NE, NJB). This cannot be understood to mean "ruler" of God's works but rather the "first one" to be created.
So, when John quoted from Proverbs he understood Christ to be a created being, the first of God's creations!
While some modern versions want to change the rendering from "beginning" here, the motivation is NOT derived from the linguistic evidence but is due to theological bias. The only way a different rendering can be defended is to appeal to dissimilar grammatical constructions and ignore the obvious evidence, as this questioner has done.