Jehovah Witnesses, is the Father the 'Beginning,' and the End?

You do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Almighty, thus, you will say that Revelation 1:8 is speaking of the Father (though it's actually speaking of Jesus Christ). Does 'Beginning' mean that the Father was Created?

You'll certainly say, 'no.' So then in Revelation 3:14 when Christ is called the 'Beginning,' does that mean that He is created?

Revelation 3:14-15, states, “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this: ‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot.’”

‘Beginning’ here, translates from the Greek word ‘arche,’ meaning ‘the origin,’ ‘the active cause,’ ‘that by which anything begins to be,’ ‘leader,’ ‘the person or thing that commences,’ ‘magistracy,’ ‘rule.’ Revelation 3:14 does not in anyway teach that Christ was created. Ironically, it teaches that He is the ‘active cause,’ ‘the origin’ of all creation, that He is the Creator, the source of all things, the Beginning of all things.

11 Answers

Relevance
  • 9 years ago
    Best Answer

    The only-begotten son , Jesus, had a beginning [Colossians 1.15,16]. The Father, Jehovah, has no beginning and no end [Psalm 90.2]

    Haven't you read that it is written Jesus' God is his Father?

    [John 20.17; Compare 1Cor 11.3]

    Source(s): THE HOLY BIBLE
  • 9 years ago

    Question: Is the Father the 'Beginning,' and the End?

    no.

    The NU-Text and M-Text omit the Beginning and the End text.

    "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

    Question: In Revelation 3:14 when Christ is called the 'Beginning,' does that mean that He is created?

    If the creative act was by God, then God must have at least begun it alone; therefore the Son of God did not begin it. Revelation 3:14 thus proves that God started the creative work by bringing the Logos, God’s firstborn, into existence. This would mean, then that the Logos, as a created being, is a part of creation and, therefore, was both created and hence had a beginning.

    Topic: Arche

    "The word archē, with the meaning “source,” is nowhere attested in the NT" —–Rolf Furuli, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation, 1999.

  • Suzy
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    So you are saying that the rest of that Scripture means nothing? Read the whole thing, "The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning (here is where it gets tricky for you), ''of the creation of God," Of the creation of God. Again, Beginning of the creation of God. You do know I can show you the Scriptures that says he is the firstborn of creation right?

  • 9 years ago

    Since Jehovah God had no beginning and has no end ...then of course Jesus is the beginning....Jesus ( Michael in heaven ) was the firstborn OF ALL CREATION. Because he is first...everything made was made by him...

    his father, Jehovah told him to make everything and obediently he obeyed...and also since he is the firstborn..he gets the inheritance....everything is for him.

    Being cold nor hot is referring to the ministry...he was saying they are not fired up about spreading the good news...neither are they cold to the message...but are just doing the least they can do to get by.

    We must have zeal and a feeling of urgency to bring people to Jehovah God for their lives are in danger.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    Pick up your bible and Read John 20: 17 Clint, and then balance that statement Jesus said to Mary Magdalene to the verse you quoting and ask yourself how can this be?

    If Jesus is saying he has a God- how is it that you are interpreting Rev as saying Jesus is God when clearly Jesus does not AGREE with you. There cannot be 2 Almighty Gods

    Who is right.. Jesus or yourself?

  • 9 years ago

    God is the father ~Jesus is the son. full stop.

    John 17:3 I CORINTH..11:3 MARK 13: 1 24:32 COLOSS 1:5...REVEL..3:14

  • Avatar
    Lv 4
    9 years ago

    Revelation 1:8, Jesus is Alfa and Omega

    Jesus is awesome

  • 9 years ago

    Stop posting the same questions over and over, since you aren't adding anything to the discussion. I'm having difficulty wading through all the 'Jehovah' and 'NWT' questions.

  • 9 years ago

    Greetings,

    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.

    Yours,

    BAR-ANERGES

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Your god sounds rather boring and lame. Our god on the Moon is an Indian who can turn into a wolf. Can your god do that? I didn't think so.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.