Henry Alford: the beginning of the creation of God (= πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, ref. Col., where see note, as also Bleek on the Hebrews, vol. ii. 1, p. 43 note. In Him the whole creation of God is begun and conditioned: He is its source and primary fountain-head. The mere word ἀρχή would admit the meaning that Christ is the first created being: see Genesis 49:3; Deuteronomy 21:17; and Proverbs 8:22. And so the Arians here take it, and some who have followed them: e. g. Castalio,” chef d’œuvre:” “omnium Dei operum excellentissimum atque primum:” and so Ewald and Züllig. But every consideration of the requirements of the context, and of the Person of Christ as set forth to us in this book, is against any such view. Others, as Calov., Bengel, Whitby, al., make ἀρχή = ἄρχων, which is impossible: as it is also to interpret κτίσεως of the new spiritual creation, the church, as Ribera, Corn.-a-lap., Grot., Wetst., al. There can be little doubt that ἀρχή is to be taken in that pregnant sense in which we have it, e. g., in Wisd. 12:16, ἡ γὰρ ἰσχύς σου δικαιοσύνης ἀρχή,—ib. 14:27, ἡ γὰρ τῶν … εἰδώλων θρησκεία παντὸς ἀρχὴ κακοῦ καὶ αἰτία καὶ πέρας ἐστίν: and in the Gospel of Nicodemus, p. ii. cap. vii. Tischdf. Ev. Apoc. p. 307, where Satan is said to be ἀρχὴ τοῦ θανάτου καὶ ῥίζα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, viz. the incipient cause. So Andr., Areth. in Catena (ἡ προκαταρκτικὴ αἰτία τῆς κτίσεως), Lyra, Vitr., Wolf, Stern, Hengst., De Wette, Ebrard, Düsterd., al. The latter asks the questions, “How could Christ write if it were only this present Epistle, if he were himself a creature? How could every creature in heaven and earth adore him, if he were one of themselves (cf. ch. 19:10)? We need only think of the appellation of our Lord as the Α and Ω (ch. 22:13: cf. 1:8) in its necessary fulness of import, and we shall see that in the Α lies the necessity of his being the ἀρχή of the Creation, as in the Ω that of his coming to bring the visible creation to an end”)
William Burkitt: The other title given to Christ, is the beginning of the creation of God; that is, the beginner of the creation of God, the original and first cause, by which all the creatures of God had their beginning. Christ is not only principium principatun [sic], but principium principians; not the passive beginning, or he that first created, but the active beginning, or he by whom the creation was begun, both the old and new creation.
Peter Pett's Commentary: He is ‘the beginning of the creation of God’. As its beginning He is its source, the firstborn before the whole of creation (Colossians 1:15). But equally important is the fact that He is also the beginning of the new creation (Revelation 21:1 with Revelation 1:7). In that there is a land of riches beyond anything they have ever dreamed of. Thus all things belong to Him and are in His hands.
Expositor's Greek Testament: The resemblance of ἡ ἀρχή κ. τ. λ., to a passage in Colossians is noteworthy as occurring in an open letter to the neighbouring church of Laodicea (Philonic passages in Grill, pp. 106–110). Here the phrase denotes “the active source or principle of God’s universe or Creation” ( ἀρχή, as in Greek philosophy and Jewish wisdom-literature, = αἰτία origin), which is practically Paul’s idea and that of John 1:3 (“the Logos idea without the name Logos,” Beyschlag). This title of “incipient cause” implies a position of priority to everything created; he is the first in the sense that he is neither creator (a prerogative of God in the Apocalypse), nor created, but creative. It forms the most explicit allusion to the pre-existence of Jesus in the Apocalypse, where he is usually regarded as a divine being whose heavenly power and position are the outcome of his earthly suffering and resurrection: John ascribes to him here (not at Revelation 12:5, as Baldensperger, 85, thinks) that pre-existence which, in more or less vital forms, had been predicated of the messiah in Jewish apocalyptic (cf. En. xlviii.). This pre-existence of messiah is an extension of the principle of determinism; God foreordained the salvation itself as well as its historical hour. See the Egyptian hymn: “He is the primeval one, and existed when as yet nothing existed; whatever is, He made it after He was. He is the father of beginnings.… God is the truth, He lives by Truth, He lives upon Truth, He is the king of Truth.” The evidence for the pre-existence of messiah in Jewish Christian literature is examined by Dr. G. A. Barton, Journ. Bibl. Lit. 1902, pp. 78–91. Cf. Introd. § 6.
Sources: Alford, Henry. Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary.
Burkitt, William. "Commentary on Revelation 3:14". Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament. https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/wbc/revelation-3.html. 1700-1703.
Pett, Peter. "Commentary on Revelation 3:14". "Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible ". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/pet/revelation-3.html. 2013.
Nicol, W. Robertson, M.A., L.L.D. "Commentary on Revelation 3:14". The Expositor's Greek Testament. https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/egt/revelation-3.html. 1897-1910.
I see the last commentator relies on Enoch.
ReplyDeleteHebrews 9:11 may be useful for defining what is and what is not "creation".
ReplyDeleteI believe that Bengel captures the sense of Heb. 9:11 when he states:
ReplyDelete"The Tabernacle, through which Christ entered, was not of that workmanship or structure."
I.e., it was not part of material creation or things made by humanity. But usually when scripture refers to "creation," it's referring to God creating something and that's what we fine in Rev. 3:14--creation of/by God.
I would not say Alford is "relying" on Enoch although he does cite the document to illustrate how ancient Jews possibly conceived the Messiah/Son of Man. Others normally cite 4 Ezra too and possibly Daniel 7:13-14.
My reason for quoting Alford was to show his view of Rev. 3:14.
https://www.academia.edu/13710418/Codex_Sinaiticus_An_Early_Christian_Commentary_on_the_Apocalypse
ReplyDeleteI've read the piece by Hernandez, Jr. before. Did you notice why he said Sinaiticus possibly introduced that reading for Rev. 3:14? Based on those polemic motivations and how late the reading is, how confident can we be in such a reading or interpretation of 3:14?
ReplyDeleteSee http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v20/TC-2015-Malik.pdf
See https://books.google.com/books?id=8C1YlHaGpooC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=codex+sinaiticus+apocalypse+reliable?&source=bl&ots=Q1q1Vj2q3K&sig=ACfU3U1Yukmp9I-jqlNqVT8pjwG-95KNKw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwja6LuEz63lAhVyU98KHelbAd04ChDoATAEegQIChAB#v=onepage&q=beginning&f=false
ReplyDeleteEspecially check out footnote 253.
I am in no way suggesting that it was the original reading. As I have said before, its the data not the conclusion & Beale gives a more plausible explanation to the problem & why it was changed IMO.
ReplyDeleteHernandez, Jr. associates the Sinaiticus change for Rev. 3:14 with the Arian controversy. That seems plausible too and the CS is dated to the 4th century CE, so I don't see it having much bearing on what John meant anyway. I've read Beale and have to think back to his reasons for preferring the new creation understanding, but Moses Stuart rejected that understanding in his day. I also see little reason to favor that interpretation based on the context of 3:14.
ReplyDeleteBAGD, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker (Editor), William F. Arndt (Translator), F. Wilbur Gingrich references JTS article "Christ as ARCH of Creation," by C.F.BURNEY from the journal of theological studies
ReplyDeletehttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1tzwXwcet8Q5RNj-1IObOTd7DjqPMjvzv/view?usp=drivesdk