God the Son—Hands on Creator of all things!

Ray's June 21, 2000 Reply to Wrench

 

 

Ray Goldsmith

alka1@sssnet.com

 

 

 

Hello Wrench.  I’m thinking that interspersing with the cut and paste method seems to be the major cause of our letters being so lengthy, or appearing to be anyway.  So I tried to reduce the amount of C&P interspersing in my last letter, and instead just explain our recent points in somewhat shortened fashion. Even 70 pages at one sitting seems a might much for anyone to read and get something out of it.  If we both work together we can keep these letters at a manageable level.  So I’m going to follow the same style in this letter, and invite you to try the same in return.  OK, let’s get started.

 

When I said “We are pretty much finished with Revelation 3:14 as far as the lexical evidence is concerned”, I didn’t mean that we could never return to the point. Obviously if new or other relevant info comes to the surface, we will take it as it comes.  But we have examined the major Lexicons and Commentaries, and discovered that the meaning you contend for in Revelation 3:14 is not well supported. But we are still hammering away at some points, as I alluded to, and we will continue along these lines in this letter as well.

 

You ask if I know of any lexicons or commentaries that were done by Unitarians. Not that I’m aware of except to the extent indicated in the article about Ezra Abbot, and perhaps what we can learn about his successor in the Harvard Divinity School, Professor  Thayer, whom we will address more fully later in this letter. What we can learn about how unitarians respond to theology in general can be found in quotations from various sources. Men like Joseph Thayer and Ezra Abbot earned their keep, so to speak, in the scholarly community, even though their views were considered suspect…they nevertheless exhibited an acute awareness of the issues involved in both biblical and extra-biblical sources.

 

I seem to detect some frustration on your part about the poor job you think Thayer and Abbot have done in the Grimm/Thayer Lexicon in defending your view of how Rev. 3:14 should be understood. But in setting forth this frustration you seem to be participating in the gentle art of self-deception. How does that work?  Well, although you have admitted that the commentators base their denial of your meaning (first in series…beginning of existence) on the teaching of the New Testament elsewhere pertaining to the exact subject material and referents of 3:14, you then seem to tuck this information into a deep dark crevice in your mind, and quite arbitrarily assume that word-usage for “arche” is the major and dominant decider of the issue. The reason you have done this is exceedingly obvious, but it is just as obvious that maintaining your position requires you to adopt a “tunnel vision” attitude in picking and choosing what should be the determiner of the issue. What do I mean by “tunnel vision”?

 

Well, for example, in your first few paragraphs you launch into a discussion where you put the emphasis on “word-usage and meaning”. Thus you list seven points which mostly address themselves to that issue.  But the reason cited by the scholars is other context in the N.T. having to do with the same subject material and referents as in 3:14.  This gets very little attention at this point in your discussion, except for a couple questions you ask about “active agent and intermediate agent”…

 

Never mind that John One presents us with a very comprehensive and directly relevant context, and strangely in that context your main claim to fame is missing…the coming INTO existence of the Logos. Not only is that missing completely from the context, but it also declares in unambiguous terms the existence of the logos before everything ever came into existence…without even a single exception. Instead of this, you assume and treat word-usage elsewhere as if it should be considered the decisive issue at 3:14, and from that assumption you then go on to portray the other side as lacking evidence, or as relying on extra-biblical evidence for support. There is your tunnel vision in action, Wrench.  It’s convenient for you to assume that the other side is basing their conclusion on this, and it is unpleasant for you to remember what they really said their reason was.  

 

Now please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not meaning to suggest that I think you are consciously doing this, in fact I believe the opposite. I think you just get locked into a certain thought process without being consciously aware of what’s being left out. After all, water does run downhill. But when it’s all said and done the scholars have made it clear that they base their denial of your view of 3:14 on other contexts in the NT which have to do with the same referents and subject material, and no amount of front flips or back flips with the word-usage tangent is going to change that. Remember me pointing out that your priorities seem confused? Well, that is exactly what I was referring to.  These scholars have not been deterred by word-usage elsewhere, because they know that  context is rule number one, and NT context even trumps over word-usage elsewhere, no matter where it is. So that is what you will have to come to grips with to meet the goals and standards you set for yourself in your treatise, even in the re-framing of it.

 

On the other hand, I am sensitive to your feelings, and therefore I will take your 7 points, one at a time, and try to offer some relevant comments. Before getting started, however, I think it should be pointed out that you seem to confuse the terms “rendering” and “meaning”. For the most part, with the exception of the NIV, Trinitarians have not disputed the rendering of the passage “beginning”, though they have taken issue with the NWT’s,  “…creation BY God”, pointing out that such would seem to require the presence of the preposition “hupo” to conform to the idiom. But as far as “beginning” goes, most have not disputed that…but have argued that context elsewhere in the NT rules out the “first in the series” MEANING with this particular subject material, and so they have adopted the “active or primary cause meaning (origin)”.  With that in mind, let me address your 7 points.

 

1. There is no clear case from the scriptures where “arche” means “active cause”

 

First of all “no clear case” is a subjective statement determined in the eyes of the be-holder.  Many scholars indeed see such an emphasis at Revelation 22:13, even if Grimm does not, and it is not at all certain that he doesn’t. Hang on, Wrench, we will discuss this point in greater detail a little later in this letter ;-)  Secondly, even if that were true, context elsewhere in the NT, with or without “arche”, could STILL rule out the “first in the series” meaning at 3:14.  And interestingly “arche” does appear in John 1:1, but this context places the Logos in the SAME relationship to “arche” as it does “ton theon”,  suggesting no more that the Logos came into existence than that “ton theon” came into existence.  Have you ever really considered this point? Or is it one of those points that is “inexpedient to inquire about”?

*****

 

2. John, elsewhere, always uses “arche” to mean “beginning”,  not “beginner” or “ruler” and he had other words to choose from in theGreek to designate “active cause” (rhiza) and “ruler” (archon) which he uses elsewhere when it is clear he wanted to designate those meanings to something.

 

Once again, context elsewhere in the New Testament could STILL rule out “first in the series” meaning at 3:14, with or without the word “arche”.  Yet “arche” appears in both John 1:1 and Rev. 22:13.  As just explained the word appears in John 1:1a, but there both the Logos and Ton Theon are related to it in the exact same way, and yet there is no more suggestion in that context that the Logos had a beginning than there is that Ton Theon had a beginning.  In fact the exact opposite would be the more natural meaning of the words there.  And in 22:13, many take this as having the “beginner” meaning, just as the term “end” there can only mean “ender”, for surely you wouldn’t argue that there will be an end to the Alpha and Omega’s existence because He is the “end”, would you? Again, this point will be covered in greater detail shortly.

 

 

 

4. The Father is elsewhere designated as the “active cause” and the Son is the “intermediate agent”.

 

First of all, one must have already reduced the infinite God to finite limitations in order to even participate in this kind of reasoning. This is the one common thread that seems to wane its way through all detractors of the Trinity. Somehow they have convinced themselves that it’s perfectly legitimate to measure the infinite God with a finite yardstick. They seem blinded to the fact that God’s ways and thoughts are highER than ours (Isaiah 55:8-9), and they can’t imagine how God would not be subject to finite limitations. Thus, if we ourselves think one thought at a time (in a straight line), God of course must do that too. If we can only be in one place at a time, of course the same must be so with God.  After all, didn’t God use our terms? 

 

Yet even within the context of finite limitations, there is logically no necessary correlation between “ cause” and “source”.  The semantical range of the words “active cause” can be easily harmonized with “intermediate agent”, especially when the intermediate agent is said to be “theos” in a context which portrays all things as having come into existence through him. Thus, the intermediate agency is the agency of true Deity who performed the hand’s on …or DIRECT creation of all things, so relative to creation this individual could well be considered the active or direct cause of creation. And we should not expect the members of the Godhead to work independently each other. Thus, considering God the Father as the “source” and the Son as the intermediate agency would not require the “cause” to be restricted to or limited to the source. Even a former President of your organization, although as a witness he of course believed that Christ was the first creation, could nevertheless apply the term “active agent” to the one who was the intermediate agency. Judge Rutherford, in his “Creation”, page 13, said:

 

“After his creation God made the Logos his active agent in the creation of everything that was created”

 

So even Rutherford  recognized how the intermediate agency could be considered as the active agency, though he of course tries to give his version of God ( only the Father) all the credit for creation,  whereas the bible shares the credit among them , thus: “Let US MAKE…..in OUR IMAGE”…note Wrench, we do not read “Let me make”, but “let US make”….one person is not being portrayed as the maker, but a plurality is. See it? More than one is getting the credit here. So as I said before, relative to creation, the Logos may well be considered as the active or direct cause or agent. For you to assume that “cause” must be necessarily correlated with “source”, you have to be thinking in a finite context of limitations, thus the cause begins here (with the Father) …etc.  Not true if God is infinite, for there never was a movement from one to another in eternity past…they have been eternally connected to each other. Nothing started,  traveled, or transferred in time.  Thus we see the Father directly addressing the Son, saying: “And you at [the] beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are [the] works of YOUR hands” (Heb. 1:10)…So who’s getting the credit here?

 

 

5. The only clear references to “arche” meaning “source/active cause” are from ‘extra-biblical’ references.

 

 

6. There are other Greek words available to designate “source/active cause” that could have easily been used to do so at Rev. 3:14.

 

 

 

7. The meaning “source/active cause” seems to come up short in many places in the reference books. I am going to pull up from the bottom the P.S. that you appended in order to address this number 7 a little more clearly.

 

What are you saying? Not at Revelation 3:14, my friend.  In fact most of the Reference books we’ve consulted agree that the “beginner” meaning is correct at 3:14, and again, just what do they base that conclusion on? Hmmm… And ALL the Reference books we’ve consulted so far have agreed that the YOUR meaning is not applicable in 3:14. So it’s really your meaning that comes up short in the Reference books. You must be reading these books with your detractor spectacles firmly in place J

 

Now I think it would be better if I do C&P the next couple paragraphs from both of us in our previous letters.  This will address your appeal to certain reference books for the purpose of supporting your attempt to portray word-usage elsewhere as IF it were the dominant decider of the issue at Rev. 3:14.  But before we get started, the reason my responses appear as an appendage is because my initial impression of your referrals was that they merely sidestep the real issue, which as the scholars have said is NT teaching elsewhere pertaining to the same subject material and referents, as the reason for their  rejection of the your meaning. And so I was simply going to point this out to you and let it stand. But the more I thought about it the more I realized that I don’t want to be rude, and I don’t want you to think that I’m not interested in your point of view. Neither of these is true. So please understand while I am in the middle of dealing with your 7 points, that I’m not in the least diverted from or incognizant of the real issue. I know right where the ball is, and I know that it’s your treatise that is on the line, OK? Now let’s post a couple paragraphs, first mine then yours:

 

  With reference to your additional referrals, first to Kittel’s, That the “orginator” meaning is not clearly represented in the LXX is not a brand new revelation, Wrench. We’ve already learned that from the Lexicons. Yet on page 479 they cite a reference to the 8th century philosopher “Anaximander” as set forth in Aristotle’s Phys., III, r, p. 203b to show an extra-biblical example of “first in the series” meaning, but interestingly they missed another usage by the same Philosopher, from the same Aristotle’s that illustrates the “originator” meaning as cited by Grimm himself in the “arche” entry. That I found to be extremely interesting. Also, they DO show an alternative meaning to “first in a series” in the LXX, namely “dominion or power”…a la Barnes, and NIV, which means that based strictly on the LXX, it cannot be established that “first in a series” is a necessity.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
It really escapes me as to why you would expect me take seriously the usage of “arche” made by not only ‘extra-biblical’ references, but Greek philosophers at that, people who were not men of the God of the Bible. I fail to see, and probably always will, how this should have a bearing on what God inspired the writers to use and how He inspired them to use it. Any one should see that the evidence for “active cause” in the scriptures is microscopic at best. The fact you find extra-biblical references as “extremely interesting” is “extremely interesting” to me. Extra-biblical usage should really not have an important bearing on how we define a word. The Biblical evidence, when there is a discrepancy, should be that which is taken seriously, not the other way around. “Ruler” of course is unprecedented in relation to John’s usage of the word. If we stick to ‘biblical’ and Johannine usage, the meaning would be “beginning”. The Trinitarian must go outside the bible to find a clear reference to “active cause” for arche, and the evidence even outside the Bible for that rendering is meager.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Because you introduced these referrals I went to the College Library and looked into them. And again because I address myself to them does not mean that I’ve lost sight of the real issue as made clear by the scholars.  So, in addressing myself to your referrals, not only did I deal with the specific point you referenced, but I went on to read the rest of the whole article in Kittel’s, and decided to point out a few other things I happened to notice. But you begin your responding paragraph AS IF you think I agree that the issue in Rev. 3:14 is properly decided in THIS arena of evidence. And so, across the stage you go, saying,

 

 “It really escapes me as to why you would expect me to take seriously the usage of “arche” made by not only ‘extra-biblical’ references, but Greek philosophers at that, people who were not men of the God of the Bible. I fail to see, and probably always will,…”

 

Ahem!, Yes Wrench, you do fail to see.  First you fail to see that you’re the one who introduced this reference not me. Secondly you fail to see that your opponents have NOT relied on word-usage elsewhere as the decider of the issue at Rev. 3:14, and so you take for granted that my answer reflects or agrees with you that it should, then you assume that this is the reason I’m pointing it out, THEN you huff and puff and blow down your own straw-man ;-)

 

 I would just ask you to relax for a moment, and stand back and look at the stance you’re taking, and the assumption you’re making about your opponents IN ORDER to make your stance seem coherent. Your stance only makes sense if your opponents really DO appeal to word-usage as the decider of the issue at Rev. 3:14! For you to assume they do, as you are doing here, can only mean that you are suffering from a bad case of “tunnel vision”. You’ve unconsciously tucked the REAL REASON your opponents cite as the decider of the issue into a deep dark crevice in your mind. As I said, it’s convenient for you to assume that word-usage elsewhere is or should be “the decider of the issue” at  3:14, and therefore it is not pleasant for you to remember what the scholars have said is the deciding issue for them. So here you are going ninety miles an hour down a dead-end street, completely oblivious to the real situation. Thus you continue a little later…

 

”Any one should see that the evidence for “active cause” in the scriptures is microscopic at best. The fact you find extra-biblical references “extremely interesting” is “extremely interesting to me. Extra-biblical usage should really not have an important bearing on how we define a word. The Biblical evidence, when there is a discrepancy, should be that which is taken seriously, not the other way around.”

 

Well,  first the “extra-biblical reference” I’m referring to here is of YOUR meaning,  “first in the series” ;-), and so what I found interesting is that both Kittel’s and Grimm refer to the same Greek philosopher, Animaxander.  Kittel’s cites your meaning, and Grimm’s cites the other meaning as exemplified by the same source. But where did you get the idea from this that anyone was saying or suggesting that this is or should be the decider of the issue at Rev. 3:14? How many times have we read from the scholars that the REAL decider of the issue for them is other teaching in the N.T. pertaining to the same referents and subject material? Yet you somehow leave this little detail out of the mix, then have your hissy fit about word-usage elsewhere and “extra-biblical references”. Why don’t you understand that your opponents have not based their decision about Rev. 3:14 on word-usage elsewhere? Why do you “fail to see” that? Look again at your final statement in this paragraph:

 

“The Trinitarian must go outside the bible to find a clear reference to “active cause” for arche, and the evidence even outside the bible is meager.”

 

First of all this is not so, and secondly it’s not cited by the reference works we’ve seen as the decider of the issue in 3:14 anyway.  Many Scholars cite Rev. 22:13 as an example of  “beginner, origin, or active cause” (Dr. Zhodiates, for example).  So your statement is untrue to start with, and mostly irrelevant anyway, because you’re out in left field pretending to yourself that word-usage elsewhere is or should be the decider of the issue at 3:14, and yet what have the Commentators said is the decider? See the faux pas?  And you should run away from Professor Abbot as fast as your feet will carry you. Why? Because he so often referred to “extra-biblical” sources as he disputed the meaning of several passages and words that appear in the N.T.  Just look again at the footnote I cited for you.  And  the same was true with Professor Thayer!

 

Now after dealing with the point you raised in Kittel’s,  I presented a fews things also in the article that I noticed.  For the most  part you brushed this aside, suggesting that to deal with it would “swell” our discussion even further. Well, gee, maybe I should have done the same with your referrals, then our letters would have been even shorter. But somehow I think I know what your reaction would have been ;-)  What do you think, Wrench? It’s OK though.  But you do offer a short response to Kittel’s final statement about 3:14, saying:

 

“…but it seems to me, that again, the ‘active source’ rendering ((?)) has doubt cast upon it by what is stated. When Kittel said “It cannot be said with certainty whether arche is used in the same sense in Rev. 3:14….”  The footnote seems to tell what sense that is, being, ‘The principle and origin of creation’ (Had. Apk. Ad loc.), Otherwise the usage reflects Rabbinic influence and the Messiah is before the world, yet Himself created.” This seems to be another admission that the words used as such would mean we understand them to mean. But regardless, it appears that the ‘active cause/source’ meaning at Rev. 3;14 is questioned by yet another reference work.”

 

However, you must have read this while being half asleep. Kittels opts for the “principle and origin of creation” MEANING (not rendering), while citing not only the previous context dealing with Col.1:15-18,  but also based on the Alpha/Omega passages… for when quoted more fully they say: “It cannot be said with certainty whether arche is used in the same sense in Rev. 3:14. This is NOT UNLIKELY in view of 21:6; 22:13. And in the footnote you refer to,  Kittel’s is saying that the alternative to their own preference would be a reflection on Rabbinic influence, which they say would represent YOUR idea.  Well, Wrench, the Rabbis in Israel were those who opposed Jesus himself,  those who are referred to in Mark 7:9-13;  in conflict with the Rabbis, Jesus said:

 

“Further, he went on to say to them: AdroitlyYOU set aside the commandment of God in order to retain YOUR tradition. For example, Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and , ‘Let him that reviles father or mother end up in death,’  But YOU men say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother: “Whatever I have by which you may get benefit from me is corban, (that is, a gift dedicated to God,):….YOU men no longer let him do a single thing for his father or his mother,  and thus YOU make the word of God invalid by YOUR tradition which YOU handed down. And many things similar to this YOU do.”

 

By following their tradition, and holding the people to them, they made the word of God of no effect (nullified it).  These were the Rabiis who used to walk around with their broad phylacteries mounted  to be seen of men (Matt. 23:5).  Jesus called them snakes to their faces and blind guides (Matt. 23:16; 26, 33).  So Kittel’s is saying that the meaning you contend for in 3:14, Wrench, is that which would reflect Rabbinic influence.  You seem to have read this carelessly, because I’m sure you really don’t want to align your view with Rabbinic influence, do you?

 

And so if you REALLY thought that the orthodox view is being questioned here, note Kittel’s concluding remarks;

“Thus in Rev. the One who sits on the throne, or Christ, is the One who is pre-temporal and post-temporal, to whom the categories of time do not apply.”

 

So much for Kittel’s, or whether this reference book questions the orthodox view of Rev. 3:14, or promotes yours. It is sad that you could read this article and get what you got out of it. It perplexes me because I’m convinced that you are sincere and a basically honest person. So I wonder how you could read this and get that out of it. I can only think that there must be some sort of disconnect or short-circuit in your thinking. I don’t know what I could do about it, but it seems clear that it has to start with convincing you that there really IS something wrong somewhere in your analytical process. Only then might you be willing to begin to wonder why it occurs and how. I have no arrogance or feeling of superiority as I write this, in fact the exact opposite. Right now the only thing I can think of that may bypass this short-circuit is to place before your eyes, your final statement about Kittel’s, and Kittel’s final statement, and ask you to try to reconcile them with each other. So I’m going to do that here, and please really consider them, and if you see that they don’t agree, be willing to explore possible reasons, OK? Now here is your final statement about Kittel’s:

 

“This seems to be another admission that the words used as such would mean we understand them to mean. But regardless, it appears that the ‘active cause/source’ meaning at Rev. 3;14 is questioned by yet another reference work.”

 

And now Kittel’s concluding statement:

 

“Thus in Rev. the One who sits on the throne, or Christ, is the One who is pre-temporal and post-temporal, to whom the categories of time do not apply.”

 

Now Wrench,  can you reconcile these two statements with each other so as to justify yours?  Can you show from Kittel’s concluding statement how they agree with you that they are questioning the orthodox interpretation of Rev. 3:14, or promoting your view? If you can’t do that, then you MUST be misrepresenting them in your concluding statement, and since you’re not dishonest,  the only other explanation  is that some sort of disconnect or short-circuit has taken place in your analysis…so that you unconsciously turn things from their orginal position and make them fit into a pre-conceived perception that you have. I have a sincere desire to help you see that something is wrong somewhere, friend.  Really compare these two concluding remarks I’ve placed before you, OK? Give me a chance, Wrench, I have no ulterior motive here whatsoever. Either these two concluding remarks can be reconciled with each other or they can’t. If you want to know what the real case is, then try it yourself. Whatever, please don’t dismiss this with a wave of the hand, and pass on, Ok?

 

Next is your referral to Vines’ entry for “beginning” (arche), where you had pointed out that Vines mentions “first cause” but only cites Col. 1:18 and not Rev. 3:14 as an example. I responded that it’s a no brainer that Vines is aware of some Trinitarians who see the “first cause” emphasis as applicable in 3:14  and some who see the “ruler” emphasis as primary there,  so he decides to use an example that all can rally around. Makes good sense to me. What really amazes me, Wrench, is that you could raise the issue of meanings that  “come up short”,  and forget to acknowledge that your meaning is the one that really comes up short at 3:14,  in this reference book as well as the others we’ve seen so far. Here, I think,  is your “tunnel vision” working overtime again, friend. I hope you don’t drive a car like this ;-) 

 

At this point I could offer one small paragraph of argumentation to refute your whole line of reasoning, and I will, but I will also go into some of your points in more detail because much of what I’m about to discuss will have application elsewhere in this letter. Here is the simple refutation…

 

You spend all this time in Vines dwelling on word usuage elsewhere as IF it is, or should be the decider of the issue at 3:14, when for the umpteenth time we’ve seen that it is the teaching of the N.T. elsewhere which has decided the issue AGAINST your meaning at Rev. 3:14.  No matter what you assume or how you cut it, “arche” and “telos” cannot mean that the Alpha & Omega had a beginning of existence or will have an end of existence in Rev. 22:13. We will presently see that in fact the Alpha & Omega was the “beginner” as the “arche” and the ender or concluder as the “telos”,  and if such could be the case here, it may be in 3:14 as well …if required by the N.T. teaching elsewhere. 

 

 Nevertheless you disagree with my offered explanation for what Vines did or didn’t do, and start off by accusing me of  seeming to:

 

“know things that are not stated about Vine’s that you would have no way of knowing. Just how do you know that is the reason that he left out Rev. 3:14 under “arche”? Aren’t you being a little presumptuous here?”

 

Your question above is much the same as your question at the end of the paragraph, where you apparently think you’ve got something but don’t know what it is yet, ha! I think it is obvious that I know at least as much as you,  if not more about this controversy. Weren’t you the one who referenced Barnes’ notes to me? Don’t you know about the NIV? Sure, we both do. As a matter of fact, you indicated that you were aware of this “controversy” way back in one of your very first letters to me. So now what kind of a deal are you suddenly putting on display here?  Please answer.

 

Also, with regard to these two primary emphases, do you remember me saying that I didn’t see a real disconnect between them? Either can accommodate the other, and all these reference works we had cited agreed that the New Testament ruled out your  meaning in 3:14,  teaching instead that Christ was in existence before all creation, rather than being the first one into existence. So let’s discuss these two meanings again. It amounts to a simple matter of emphasis, Wrench.  Since the NT rules out the first in the series meaning at 3:14,  the logos as the intermediate agency of true Deity (hand’s on, cf. Heb.1:10) would,  as the beginning,  be the beginner/direct cause of all God’s creation,  just as in Rev. 22:13 the Alpha & Omega would, as the “end”, be the ender, for surely you would not argue that the Alpha & Omega has an end to existence, would you? Of course you wouldn’t, for then you’d be cutting your nose off to spite your own face!  But how is it that the Alpha & Omega could as the “end” be the ender,  and as the “beginning”  be the beginner? Once again, as we are about to see, it is a simple matter of emphasis.

 

 In my last letter I dealt with the parallel usage of “arche” between 3:14 and 22:13. I said earlier in this letter that we would deal later with this issue in greater detail, so this is as good a place as any to do that. The point I was trying to get across is that just because someone is called “the beginning” doesn’t ipso facto mean that he HAD a beginning. I was aware of three main points while setting forth this parallel. First, I was aware of Barnes’ identification of Christ as the Alpha & Omega, second I was aware of Grimm’s listing of 22:13 under the “first in a series” emphasis, and third I was aware of the WT’s teaching that the Alpha & Omega as the “beginning & end” did not mean a beginning or end to the Alpha & Omega’s existence, and hence I saw an agreement with Barnes’ way of taking the term “beginning” as meaning “ ruler/ originator” and “end” as “ruler/ender” in 22:13. 

 

So in the interest of trying to cover all bases, I brought up and discussed these three main points. Now the next point is very instructive.  To show the WT’s agreement with Barnes at 22:13,  I was aware of the “Alpha & Omega” quote in both the Aid book and the Insight Volumes,  having both on hand here.  But the Aid book happened to be handy at the time (sitting next to me on the desk), so I turned to the page and typed out the quote. How did you respond  to this? As I said, this is very instructive, so please pay close attention here. Here is how you responded to my quotation from the “Aid book”:

 

“Well, the Aid Book has been revised, has it not. Notice what the revised “Insight” book has to say about the “beginning and the end”. The WT obviously recognized the error of the Aid book statement and has changed it.

*** it-1 81 Alpha and Omega ***
The title “the Alpha and the Omega” carries the same thought as “the first and the last” and “the beginning and the end” when these terms are used with reference to Jehovah. Before him there was no Almighty God, and there will be none after him. He will bring to a successful conclusion the issue over Godship, forever vindicated as the one and only Almighty God.—Compare Isa 44:6.

*** it-1 970 God ***
As the Alpha and the Omega (Re 22:13), he is the one and only Almighty God; he will bring to a successful conclusion the issue over Godship, being forever vindicated as the only Almighty God. (Re 1:8; 21:5, 6)

*** re 20 4 Jesus Comes With Encouragement ***
Jehovah’s calling himself by those two letters stresses that before him, there was no almighty God, and there will be none after him. He will bring to a successful conclusion, for all eternity, the issue of Godship. He will be forever vindicated as the one and only almighty God, Supreme Sovereign over all of his creation.

So, no, Ray, the WT does not agree with the “source” designation in the title “the beginning and the end”.

 

Ray replies: What are you saying?  Are you saying that God the Father was not the “source” now?  That would be interesting, wouldn’t it?  Because He called himself the “end”, does that mean that he will HAVE an end?  Why not?  Because the Alpha & Omega calls himself  “the beginning…arche”, does that mean he HAD a beginning? If not, why not?  Again, you say the WT would not agree that God the Father was the “source”? Yet isn’t that what you’ve been claiming all along? This seems to be quite a reversal.

 

Let’s allow the Alpha and Omega to explain what he means when he identifies himself as the “beginning (arche) and end (telos)”.  Look at another place this occurs in the bible, in Rev. 21:5-6

 

“And the One seated on the throne said: ‘Look! I am making all things new.” Also, he says: ‘Write, because these words are faithful and true.’

  And he said to me: ‘They have come to pass! I am the Alpha & Omega, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will give from the fountain of the water of life free.”

 

Note the expressions “I am making all things new”…and “They have come to pass”.  Then he says “…I am…the beginning and the end”. Well, does he mean he HAD a beginning?  Or will have an “end”? No he does not mean that! He means, as just indicated, He was the beginner of what began and will be the ender of what ends…he is in charge of what begins and ends because of his sovereignty.  So we see that no matter how the word is used elsewhere, or how often, it’s application does not automatically signify that one HAD a beginning.  Now of course you’d like for it to bear that sense in 3:14, but as the Scholars and Commentators have made clear, it cannot have the “beginning” meaning there because it is ruled out elsewhere in the NT…and the same is true for 21:5-6 and 22:12-13….the words “arche and telos” in these places cannot have the meaning you want so badly at 3:14.  Ok now, let’s look at the so-called “correction” you say the WT made from the Aid book to the Insight Volumes…

 

The mistake comes in your assumption that the “revision” constitutes a different meaning. Does it really, or could it be a mere sharpening of the focus that has no bearing on my argument? Is the WT arguing in the Insight Volumes that the Alpha & Omega as the “beginning” was not the beginner? And are they denying that the terms “beginning and end, first and last, are placed in contextual contrast, so that as the “end” the Alpha & Omega will NOT be the ender or concluder? Of course not, that is obvious. You see, apart from creation the “issue” would be non-existent.  So the “revision” appears to be a mere sharpening of the focus. The instructive thing, though, is your assumption that because they used different wording, this somehow negatively affects my argument. Note please that the WT, in the Insight Volumes, says that the Alpha & Omega, as the “end” or as “last’, is the CONCLUDER and will not have an ending of existence. Do you see the real emphasis? The “arche” in context is placed in contrast  to the “telos”.  So if the Alpha & Omega as the “end” will not have an “ending”, but will in fact be the “ender/concluder”, the contrast to that would be that the same Alpha & Omega, as the “beginning” did not HAVE a beginning, but was in fact the beginner!  Thus we read in Heb. 1:10

 

 “And: ‘You at [the] beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are [the] works of your hands.’”

 

Do you realize that the Father is directly addressing the Son here, Wrench?  Imagine that!

 

 The issue is a matter of emphasis, and the emphasis has to do with the Sovereignty of God. That is why Grimm could recognize such an emphasis here in 22:13 without any implication that the Alpha & Omega as the “beginning, had a beginning. Instead he merely recognizes that being the eternal God, the Alpha & Omega was first IN existence and so has the sovereignty and thus as the “beginning” he was the beginner, and as the “end” he will be the ender. The same is true with the eternal Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

The key to recognizing this particular emphasis at 22:13 is to note that the terms “he arche kai to telos” are presented without stipulation or specific reference. Whereas in 3:14 the reference of comparison is stipulated “creation of God”.  So then, since the WT says the reference in 22:13 is more sharply focused on “the issue concerning Godship”, it would necessarily include creation, for there could be no issue about Godship apart from creation. And by the way, note also that 22:13 does not specify its reference as “the issue over Godship” either, right? Other Scholars, Dr. Zodhiates for example, recognize that “arche” here simply means “active beginning or beginner”. Note what he says in “The Complete Word Study Dictionary NT”, page 260, under “arche”

 

“746. Arxn arche; gen. Arches. Beginning. Arche denotes an act. cause, as in Col. 1:18; Rev. 3:14 (cf. Rev. 1:8; 21:6; 22:13). Christ is called ‘the beginning’ because He is the efficient cause of the creation;   ‘the head’ because He is before all things, and all things were created by Him and for Him (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:10). Arche may also mean a pass. beginning of something, as the beginning of a line, road, and so forth  The line or road is conceived in one’s mind, but where he touches the paper to draw the line is the pass. beginning of the line (Matt. 19:8; Mark 1:1; 10:6; 13:8).” 

 

Note how Zodhiates cites the teaching of the N.T. to support his definition, and recall the same from A.T. Robertson in his “Word Pictures in the New Testament”. This is why these scholars have rejected the meaning you contend for at 3:14, because the teaching of Scripture elsewhere should ultimately decide the issue at 3:14 just as it does for the Alpha and Omega (21:5-6;  22:12-13).  You can claim all day long that Dr.Zodhiates was biased, but the question is can you prove it at 3:14?  I’ve noticed that JWs are very good at the former, but not so good at the latter, and so far you’ve proven to be no different.

 

So recognizing the Sovereignty emphasis, Grimm lists “arche” in 22:13 as “first of a series” meaning first in existence and not first INTO existence, and THUS the beginner and concluder as the “beginning and end”. See it?  Though they approach it from different angles (22:13) both Grimm and the WT end up with a somewhat similar focus, Grimm emphasizing the Sovereignty of the Alpha & Omega as the first IN existence, and thus the source of that which begins or concludes, and the WT eventually reaching a similar emphasis by sharpening the reference to “the issue over Godship” (though not specified in the text), an issue that would require the Sovereignty of God and the existence of creation.

 

However, since in 3:14 the reference to “arche” is stipulated “, the Lexicon’s we’ve consulted have rejected the “first in the series” emphasis (including Grimm) because it would contradict the clear teaching of the NT that Christ was not the first creature, but is clearly distinguished from that one in passages like John 1:3 and Col. 1:16-17. Thus the eternal Son, being included IN the Alpha & Omega, is the beginning of God’s creation in the same sense as he identifies himself as the beginning in 22:13…first IN existence not into existence, and thus the beginner of what begins and the ender of what ends.

 

In conclusion, concerning Grimm’s listing of 22:13 under the “first in a series” meaning, if you doubt my explanation of Grimm’s meaning (a meaning that emphasizes Sovereignty based on eternality), check out his definition of “telos” and you will see that he consistently cites 22:13 (meaning—last in a series) as applicable to the Alpha & Omega, not to suggest that the A & O will have an ending of existence, but to emphasize his eternal Sovereignty.  Here is his entry for the “telos” of 22:13:

 

“b. the end i.e. the last in a succession or series: (he) arche kai (to) telos, of God, who by his perpetuity survives all things, i.e. eternal, Rev. i.8 Rec,; xxi.6; xxii.13.”

 

Now Wrench, does Grimm, by his “first in a series” listing for 22:13 mean that the Alpha & Omega HAD a beginning? Of course not. But does he deny that the Alpha & Omega as the beginning was the “beginner/cause”?  Of course not. On the other hand, does Grimm by his “last in a succession or series” listing for 22:13 mean that the Alpha & Omega will have an end? Of course not. But does he deny that as the “end” the Alpha & Omega is the “ender”? Of  course not again!

 

Note, Wrench, what the WT says in the Insight Volume right at the same location from which you extracted one of your quotes: page 970

 

“His Position.  Jehovah is the Supreme Sovereign of the universe, the King eternal. (Ps 68:20; Da 4:25, 35; Ac 4:24; 1Ti 1:17) The position of his throne is the ultimate for superiority. (Eze 1:4-28; Da 7:9-14; Re 4:1-8)  He is the Majesty (Heb 1:3; 8:1), The Majestic God,  the Majestic One. (1Sa 4:8; Isa 33:21) He is the source of all life.—Job 33:4; Ps 36:9; Ac 17:2;4, 25.”

 

Can you see the relevance of the “ruler” meaning to the above? I am very sure you can, if you want to ;-)  And so it appears that Barnes sees Christ as INCLUDED in the Alpha & Omega, and thus sees no problem in recognizing him as the “ruler/originator” not the first INTO existence, and Beckwith and other Trinitarians see Christ ALSO as included in the Alpha & Omega, and therefore see no problem understanding Christ as the “beginner/active cause” of God’s creation in 3:14. You see, Wrench, within Trinitarianism because Christ is included in the Alpha & Omega, the two meanings “ruler” and “beginner” can easily accommodate each other. So the “controversy” is not such a big deal since it boils down to a simple matter of primary emphasis, neither of which would exclude the other.

 

How does this square with your own attempt to explain how the Alpha & Omega is the “first in a series” without suggesting that he’s a creature?  Do you restrict the “series” to the UNcreated in order to escape suggesting that the Alpha & Omega is a creature? Grimm didn’t  do that, did he? Nor the WT Society. And if you DO restrict the series in such a manner, how do you resolve that with the WT’s teaching even in the Insight Volumes that the Alpha & Omega as the “end” …“will bring to a successful conclusion the issue over Godship”?  Please explain how you reconcile your explanation with the WT’s, OK? Do they restrict the “end” to the Uncreated?

 

Ok, now that we have dealt with the “controversy” that you seem so surprised over, let me deal with your accusation the I’m being presumptuous in suggesting that Vines would defer listing 3:14 as an example of any of the three possible meanings. You say:

 

“You seem to know things that are not stated about Vine’s that you would have no way of knowing. Just how do you know that is the reason that he left out Rev. 3:14 under “arche” Aren’t you being a little presumptuous here?”

 

Well, in the first place, Wrench, how would you know whether I have any way of knowing or not? For all you know he might be my Uncle ;-)  But on a more serious note, this is not the first time you’ve attempted to castigate me from a platform of ignorance (I don’t mean ignorance in a mean-spirited or name-calling way). It’s just that you get a little presumptuous yourself while making such accusations, and then it turns out that I did know what I was talking about, and didn’t invent what I know, as you had accused me of doing. From this I don’t mean to suggest that I think I know everything either. I do the very best I can with the information I have, and that’s what I’ve done here.

 

But let’s go down thru your points and I will comment when I think it is appropriate.You reject my suggestion that Vines most likely deferred from citing 3:14 an example of “active cause or beginner” meaning because of the controversy between the “ruler” and “beginner” meanings. It appears that your mind once again took off to the races. Your reply is that you “haven’t noticed him shying away from controvery”…and then you cite a couple places without being specific as to what your point is in them. But hold on. I did not mean that Vines “shys away from controversy” in general, as you seem to be taking my point. What I was referring to as “controversy”  is whether “Ruler or beginner” is the correct primary emphasis at 3:14.

 

I checked Vines again under the listing “ruler” and discovered that although he cites “arche” as one Greek word that does have that meaning, he STILL does not cite 3:14 as an example.  Then I thought for a second,  “he doesn’t cite 3:14 for “beginner/cause” and doesn’t cite it for “ruler”,  I wonder if he cites it for your meaning? I double-checked and found out that he didn’t do that either!  Now that is interesting since these are the only emphases acknowledged for the word. Well, there HAD to be a reason he didn’t cite 3:14 for any of them.  Is it possible that he recognized your meaning as a strong candidate at 3:14 but was just biased? The key is NOT does he consider the word a strong candidate for your meaning, but does he consider it a strong candidate for your meaning IN REV. 3:14. Let’s consider this…

 

If we look under his entry for “first-begotten or firstborn” (prototokos), he cites the teaching of the N.T. elsewhere as Authority for his belief in the eternality of the Son, and he even rejects the partitive emphasis of the genitive in Col. 1:15,  opting for the objective emphasis instead as per Col 1:16.  So, since he is quite clear that he does not believe Christ was the first creature,  we can draw the conclusion with as much certainty as the method of inductive logic will afford us that he would NOT consider your meaning as likely in 3:14. In fact, believing in the eternality of the Son, as he does, he would therefore not even consider your meaning as a strong candidate in Rev. 3:14. In other words, for him, your meaning would not even be considered as possiible in 3:14. That leaves just the other two possible meanings, ruler or beginner (active cause).

 

 Now it stands to reason that Vines himself would regard either of the two remaining  meanings as agreeable with the N.T. teaching elsewhere, since he does acknowledge both as possible meanings for the word .But at Rev. 3:14 he doesn’t even consider your meaning POSSIBLE.  So it seems quite reasonable that he simply had no particular preference at 3:14 between Ruler and beginner/cause as the primary emphasis, hence he deferred listing 3:14 under both.  However, this does not mean to suggest that he always avoids controversy in general, or as a general rule. When he has a preference, as you’ve said, he is quite vocal, but when he doesn’t, he is not. Makes good sense to me. Thus whether “ruler or beginner/cause” is the correct primary emphasis at 3:14 is the “controversy” Vines seems to have no particular preference for. And yet either of the two emphases could accomodate the other anyway. Perhaps that is why he had no particular preference, or at least refrained from citing it under either meaning. And that he would cite another passage that all could rally around as an example of the meaning “active cause or source”,  makes good sense. Yet you STILL try to make “word usage” elsewhere the dominant factor or decider of the issue at 3:14. Wild goose chase, friend, since the scholars we’ve seen uniformly cite the teaching of the N.T. elsewhere as the reason your meaning should be rejected at 3:14.

 

These other words you mention are neither here nor there; the fact is they were not used at 3:14 and so have no force in the discussion, your attempt to lure me offpoint notwithstanding.  Offpoint?  Yes, the issue is NOT word usage elsewhere like you keep assuming,  but the teaching of the New Testament elsewhere, as the scholars have indicated.  I find it very amusing that you keep trying to beat this dead horse to death!

 

Once it is recognized that you’ve got yourself stuck in the wrong arena for determining the proper understanding of Rev. 3:14,  then all of your statements predicated on that platform become correspondingly suspect.  Take this statement you make about Vines,  for example:

 

“Notice under ‘Cause (noun or verb)”. We don’t even find a hint of “arche” as being offered. Look under “Root” and again, we don’t even find a hint, yet, we find “rhiza” which is given the same meaning that you are offering”

 

Does that mean, Wrench, that the Alpha & Omega couldn’t have been the “cause” as the “arche”, and would it mean that the Alpha & Omega had a beginning of existence because He said “I am the beginning (arche)…”? Why not? After all, look what that word means elsewhere, right?    

 

Now look at your argumentation in the above quotation. Do you see where your thinking is? You’re in the wrong arena, Wrench!  But you seem completely sold out and oblivious to it. Once again, it is the teaching of the New Testament elsewhere which has been indicated to be the decider of the issue against your interpretation at 3:14…but you keep plugging away at word/usage elsewhere…LOL!

 

And now for one of your final statements that you conjure up and present while waiting at the airport for your train to land, you say:

 

“Now, I find that strange that you don’t find that even a little bit strange and even stranger that, with this lack of evidence where you would expect to find it, you find ‘extremely interesting’ the support for such a rendering, all from extra-biblical  references. You have to admit, Ray, that what you are offering is not much to hold on to.”

 

Consider what you are saying, and I ask “where are you getting this from?” What “lack of evidence”?  Can you not see that you’ve ASSUMED that the proper arena (decider of the issue at 3:14) is word-usage elsewhere? Then, once you make that assumption,  you say to yourself triumphantly “he hasn’t got any evidence”. Note how you ramble on and on about “extra-biblical evidence. Really? Is that what the Commentators have said in reference to Rev. 3:14  when rejecting your view? What does the Alpha & Omega mean when he calls himself “the beginning”? Does it mean he HAD a beginning? Wasn’t the Alpha & Omega in fact the “beginner” and won’t he in fact be the “ender”? You see, I’ve been “offering” this all along, but you seem to be conveniently oblivious to it, the scholars have “offered” this all along too, but you seem to have “tucked this into a deep dark crevise of your mind”…THEN you take a deep breath and say: “You have to admit, Ray, that what you are offering is not much to hold on to.”  Well, what can I say, my friend, except that the train you’ve been looking for will not be landing at the airport soon. Your best bet is to head for the train station J

 

In presenting this “problem” you found in Vine’s,  that he does not cite 3:14 as an example of the “active cause/beginner” meaning,  what I have shown above is that your explanation is not the only one available. So much for your referral to Vines.

 

 

Next is your referral to Strong’s Concordance. You had once again cited the Greek entry for “arche”,  saying that it doesn’t mention “source or origin or cause”, and in response I pointed three things out. First I observed that this is not intended to be an exhaustive Lexicon nor does it intend to compete with the major lexicons that DO cite “active cause/beginner” as the meaning of the word (all the major Koine Lexicons that I’m aware of) in Rev. 3:14, then I observed that Strong’s DOES say that it is used in a wide variety of applications of time, order, and rank…etc, pointing out that this may allow for a meaning such as we see in Col. 1:17 “he is before all things”.  I also directed you to the NWT’s translation of Colossians 2:17,  and pointed out that Strong’s does not mention  “reality” as a meaning of “soma” either, but in a similar way to “arche” it does say that it was used in a  wide variety of applications…etc.  

 

Now from your response it appears that most of this went right over your head. At least your mind seems to have been somewhere else other than my answer. Thus the only thing you acknowledged from my response was that Strong’s is not intended to be an exhaustive Lexicon. You ignored everything else! 

 

Be that as it may, now you say of Strong’s that you “find it significant that such an ‘important’  meaning (to Trinitarians, that is) was left out.  Well then, notice that the meaning “reality” is also “left out” for SOMA in the same publication, and compare that with the NWT’s rendering of Col. 2:17. Yet you wouldn’t question the anointed Translation Committee’s rendering on such grounds, would you?  Of course not, for Strong’s does allow for such a meaning by pointing out that the word is used in a wide variety of ways. The same is the case in Strong’s entry for “arche”.

 

“If, Strong’s was the only one that did it, then you might be able to wiggle out, but when I see the same things happen in Vine’s index and I see Barnes throw a veritable fit over the meaning, and I see Beckwith “object to the Son being designated the “source”,  I have to think that Grimm was biased with his choice of meanings.”

 

Finally, the true motivation for all your “references” comes to the surface. Look at your words above “I have to think that Grimm was biased with his choice of meanings”. Now we see what you’ve been “looking for”. In the past you’ve been somewhat embarrassed by your inability to verify your claim of bias leveled against Grimm’s lexicon at Rev. 3:14. I did what I don’t think you expected me to do;  I called your bluff, and when I did, you were suddenly bankrupt. All you could find were the bracketed statements which have no introductory clues. You even admit that you’ve “looked high and low” trying to find out what’s in them, no doubt hoping to find something that comes against Grimm’s classification of this as meaning “active/cause/beginner”. 

 

The evolution of this  “bias” claim of yours is very revealing. Do you remember the time line of it all? Remember what we went through with your initial claim in agreement with your friend that Thayer was a Unitarian? But, you argued, he was only a translator, so the Lexicon was actually the work of a Trinitarian.  Remember? This was the gist of your original argument in order to sustain your claim of bias at 3:14. You were trying to suggest that even though Thayer was a Unitarian, he really didn’t do much else than translate, and so “the probability of bias remains in tact”.  At that point in time, I could not challenge your claim that he was a Unitarian, even though I had researched Thayer about year earlier and could not prove conclusively that he was a Unitarian, though the only positive evidence I could find indicated pretty strongly that he was. So, not being about to challenge you and your claim about Thayer, since I had no idea what evidence you may have accumlated about him, and believing him to probably be a Unitarian anyhow, I went with you and your friend.

 

Two weeks later you write me a separate (side letter) in which you reveal that you are having second thoughts about Thayer, and that you were now wondering if he was, after all,  a Unitarian. You asked me what I might have on hand to clear up the matter. So I, wanting to help you, wrote and shared with you my own findings from a year previous. Being obviously confused about the time-line of these things over the previous 3 weeks or so, you then accused me of being dishonest, because I knew that he might not be a Unitarian. However, once we got the time-line in proper sequence, it was obvious that I simply had no way to challenge YOUR claim prior to your revealing to me that you had no proof either, I had not actually claimed him to be a Unitarian. In other words, before you acknowledged him as a Unitarian, I had quite carefully refrained from such a statement, and kept my arguments well in line with the evidence  I had accumulated up till then. Your claim of dishonesty was presaged by what you took as a dogmatic statement from me that Thayer turned out to be quite an embarrassment to you. You wondered how I could say that, since I knew that he might not be a Unitarian. However, I knew nothing of the kind at the time I made that statement to you. What I “knew” was that he probably was a Unitarian and that I didn’t have anything to challenge your statement that he was. Hence, at the time I made that statement, I was correct in what I said…you WERE feeling exactly as I had intimated.

 

 Hence, from all of this came what you took to be a possibility that Thayer might not be a Unitarian and might yet be a Trinitarian. At least you didn’t think I could prove he was Unitarian, and so you felt kind of let off the hook, so to speak, and thought you could still claim that all my references were the sole work of Trinitarians. Then, I noticed what Thayer himself says about Abbot being involved in the project as well, and quickly pointed out to you that Abbot definitely WAS a Unitarian. Hence, back we came to the same problem you THOUGHT you had gotten rid of with Thayer, ha.  Suddenly it was deemed necessary to switch tactics again. Now the contents of the bracketed statements at 3:14 suddenly took on a great significance to you …so you can at least consider it possible that Thayer or Abbot may be countering Grimm in them.  But although you hunted “high and low” you were not able to track them down. And in the meantime you were being challenged to verify your claim of bias in Grimm’s at 3:14., and because you were unable to do so, it would be a mark against your treatise, even in the re-framing of it.

 

Now, with your statement above about the results of your “findings” in the reference books you cited, that you  “have to think that Grimm was biased with his choice of meanings.” It becomes obvious that you’ve been trying to find a way to verify your  claim of "bias” against Grimm. Aha!  Yet, in light of my responses above to your “findings”,  perhaps we should take your “have to find bias” statement  as the desired results of a “fishing expedition”.  What do you think, Wrench?  ;-)

 

Why should we not be surprised by that? You see, your attitude toward my counter discoveries in Kittel’s kind of sets the tone here, doesn’t it?  And yet, to aid yourself in the eye-brow raising bit, you first closed your eyes and made a huge assumption. What was it? Throughout all these referrals of yours, you have conveniently taken for granted that word-usage elsewhere is and should be the “decider” of the issue at 3:14. If only it were true, then you’d have a real case. But since it’s not true, you’ve been huffing and puffing at your own strawman ;-)….

 

Ok, finally let’s move along. After pointing out that “certainly Commentators acknowledge that the word “arche” can and does mean “passive beginning or first in a series”, none that we’ve seen so far, nor any of the lexicographers have indicated that they think it means that at 3:14. And also my point that this is logically difficult for you, in that, how do you take advantage their “credibility” when they acknowledge that your meaning is “linguistically possible”, but reject the same credibility when they adopt a different meaning themselves?  Note your response to this:

 

“The answer to that is simple, Ray. I explained in my last letter. Did you read it all? When I quote something from a Trinitarian source that agrees with what I am saying, it is more for your benefit than mine, for sure. It should show you that what I am saying is not just due to a personal conviction but that there is evidence for it, even from your doctrinal comrades. Haven’t you done the same thing yourself with others? Do you agree with everything that a lexicographer has to say because you agree with something he said in one place or even under the same article?”

 

Of course I read it, friend, but you fail to see that this answers a different point. I’m not referring to when they may agree with you on one point, and disagree on another, which your “answer” addresses, but rather to ONE SINGLE POINT where you ASSUME they are agreeing with you, and they PROVE that they aren’t. It went right over your head. They aren’t agreeing with you, like you assume, otherwise they’d adopt your meaning at Rev. 3:14. See it? Hence, your reply addresses a different situation, one in which they AGREE with you. Then your argument here would make sense. But the real case is that they DON’T agree with you at 3:14.  See how you’ve gotten things out of whack again?

 

 

What went right over your head, Wrench, is that they are really saying that if it weren’t for the precedence of context and teaching elsewhere in the New Testament, the words taken by themselves could have such a meaning, but when New Testament context is consulted…it brings them to a different conclusion, one that DISAGREES with you at 3:14. They are making it clear what the real “decider” WAS for them, and you’re on your way to the airport to wait for your train to come in. Do you see it? Apparently you haven’t so far, or you’d see the point I’m making about this circumstance being “logically difficult” for you. I hope it’s a little more clear now.

 

After pointing to your claim that all my sources were trinitarians, and saying that this was proven wrong. You take umbrage with my statement, saying:

 

“Oh please, Ray, nothing of the sort has been proven. More below.”

 

But wait, have we not seen at the very least that Thayer was probably a Unitarian, and Abbot was definitely one? Is Thayer not listed as a Unitarian by the publisher of the Lexicon?  Did not Thayer take over for Abbot as Bussey Professor at the Harvard Divinity School? And have you proven that Thayer was a Trinitarian…since you made the original charge? I Don’t think so ;-) As a matter of fact, you really didn’t prove that Grimm himself was a Trinitarian, did you? Or the authors of the BAGD? Zodhiates, I can attest to on a personal basis, is definitely a Trinitarian. The others I’ve not seen any verification for, though the Luthern Missouri Synod is mentioned as deeply involved in the Introduction of the BAGD, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they were. So I don’t know for sure that they weren’t, and I don’t know for sure that they were. Then again, I didn’t make the charge anyway, did I?  Nope, the charge was yours, in an effort to explain why your view of 3:14 had such little support in these reference works. And yes we will cover this in more detail a little further down in this letter.

 

After explaining how we had gotten into a somewhat ridiculous exchange about whether my sources were “biased”, meaning that you were claiming that the truth (as you claimed it to be) had been “corrupted” by their personal convictions (bias was your term). You explain in this letter that you only recently recognized the implications of the word, “corruption”, and that is has been my word. That is true. You then go on to say that you kept equating “corruption” with your term “bias”, and now you explain that “bias can certainly mean something different than corruption. You continue, “What I said was that Grimm’s choice for “active cause/source” was probably due to bias, or what we could call a theologically driven preference, which with what I have found here and there, and still continue to look, seems to be accurate.”

 

The real question, Wrench, is NOT whether bias can mean something different from “corruption”, but whether is DOES mean something different as you presented it in your discussion of my sources. What was your charge? You seem to be saying that their personal convictions, whether conscious or unconscious, were corrupting the truth as you claim it to be, so that the truth is not represented in their entries for the term. So in that case my use of the term “corruption” perfectly fits your charge. In fact my reason for using that term was to nail down the charge in the first place…and not allow a later “explanation” that bias doesn’t have to be conscious or necessarily bad. I knew what you were claiming as an explanation for why they didn’t support your meaning very well. I also knew I was going to hold you to it, and that you weren’t going to like it. So I chose “corruption” to nail ur charge to the wall. There’s no way around it, friend, you were claiming that the real truth was being “corrupted” because of their personal convictions, conscious or otherwise, and such personal convictions were causing a clouding or misrepresentation of the truth (as you saw it) in their works.

 

 

 

After pointing out that the bracketed statements in 3:14 most likely supplement Grimm’s references because we see no evidence otherwise, and Thayer had said that his usual practice when introducing a contrary opinion or disagreement was to include representative discussions from both sides. Nor do we see any other hints, such as “but see…” or “however see…”…which may have suggested a piece of contrary evidence, whether known or unknown to Grimm. In other words, even if it could be shown that one or more of the bracketed statements includes contrary evidence, that would not ipso facto reveal  bias (as you’ve applied the term) on Grimm’s part, for he may not have been aware of such a reference. But in the absence of  tell-tale signs, the bracketed statements do appear to suppliment Grimm’s references. Apparently my assessment about this upsets you, for note how you react…

 

“Don’t you again, think that is a little presumptuous? Neither of us know what those references say, how can you claim that nothing like that appears if you haven’t seen it? How do you know for a certainty that Thayer has not offered a differing opinion? And what is more, if you really believe that Thayer’s bracketed references all supplement Grimm’s choice for “active cause”, how could you turn around and still believe Thayer to be a Unitarian? His actions would completely contradict his theology.
You say that Thayer whenever he brings a different opinion in he includes representative discussions from both sides. I notice that this statement is precluded by the words, “On the comparatively few points respecting which DOCTRINAL MATTERS STILL DIFFER”. Now, let’s be honest, Ray. If Thayer was a Unitarian, did him and Grimm have doctrinal differences in relation to Revelation 3:14? They most certainly did. Is it not presumptuous for you to think that all the supplements were in agreement with Grimm’s findings on “active cause” if you honestly think that Thayer was a Unitarian? There is no basis for you to state that there “is nothing like that there” unless of course, you have actually read the references yourself, and if you have, and they all agree, I don’t know how you could possibly still think that Thayer was Unitarian. Your logic with this is just not making sense to me.
What is more, notice what Thayer’s has to say in relation to his Explanations and Abbreviations under [] Brackets. Since I know you have the book, I’ll let you read it. It would seem the brackets would be more likely not to be there if everything was in agreement with what Grimm had to say.”

 

If I declared outright that they suppliment Grimm’s references, THEN you might say that I’m being presumptuous. But that’s not what I’m doing, Wrench? I’m merely stating the facts without distortion. As long as I acknowledge (and I do) that the bracketed statements COULD show a disagreement or contrary opinion, I’m perfectly free to state my opinion of what is before us.  I think what really upsets you is that fact that what I’m saying DOES appear to be the case, and THAT in addition to the fact that the entry does support my view and not yours. However, there is nothing I’ve said that is not factual. I’m sure, argumentatively speaking, that you’d love for me to declare dogmatically that the bracketed remarks DO supplement Grimm’s references, especially if you could then find one or more of them that disagrees with Grimm. But I’ve not said dogmatically that they DO supplement Grimm, but only that they appear to, and they do.

No dogmatism here, in fact I think I’ve protected myself pretty well.

 

I don’t know why this bothers you so much, but in trying to counter it you appeal to what you think is logical or illogical. Thus you suggest that my thinking is contrary to good logic because it would make Thayer out to be NOT a Unitarian. But you’re the one being illogical here, Wrench. How so?  Because in order for you to think like this, you have to assume in the first place that Thayer being Unitarian would always have contrary evidence to counter Grimm with. However, no matter WHAT position Thayer holds, he still has to count the cost, so to speak, and determine if such contrary evidence will actually get the job done. And that of course assumes that he HAS contrary evidence. Not only that, but Thayer being a real scholar (even if he were a Unitarian),  probably understood the REAL crux of the matter at 3:14 ( Teaching of the N.T. elsewhere, and not word-usage elsewhere as the decider of the issue).  And by the way, did you notice that the bracketed remarks refer to, God forbid, extra-biblical sources? So what good would they do you anyhow, since you’ve already ruled them out of court?

 

But in conclusion, as I’ve repeatedly said, you are welcome to research them and share your discoveries. I’m willing to take the evidence as it comes. But since you’ve made the charges against these references works, it is obvious that the greater burden is on you in this area, because you have to verify your claim of “bias” leveled against these sources as an explanation for why your view has such little support. So far you’ve not been able to verify that claim, and thus it remains as a mark against your treatise. Now the following I found to be not a little amusing. First my statement, followed by your response:

 

“You've tried to track down the references to see if they disagree, but so far you 've not been very successful in finding what you're looking for. I've also reminded you that should one or more of the bracketed references indicate a disagreement or different opinion, it still would not prove that Grimm succumbed to his personal convictions (bias), for the info may not have been available to him at the time.”

 

Wrench says: “Well, he certainly had to do some extensive research to find his ‘extra-biblical’ references. It would seem funny that he would miss something if it was there with such a thorough investigation going on. Grimm had to go “looking” to find something to “agree” with his position on Rev. 3:14. It wasn’t a meaning that he clearly found in the bible, that’s for sure. He had to find support from a Greek philosopher.”

 

LOL!  It is amazing how we get ourselves locked into certain thought processes, sometimes.  My laughing is not meant in any kind of a ridiculing sense, it’s just plain funny. So sold-out and engrossed are you within this assumption of yours (that word usage elsewhere is or should be the decider at 3:14, that you even believe Grimm and the other scholars are locked in WITH you, and once you assume this, off you go…making judgments about Grimm and the others as well. Judgments such as “he had to do this, and he had to do that”…etc. One could not ask for a better illustration of tunnel vision in action than this.  It doesn’t seem to occur to you that “extensive researching” and “going lookin” is what Lexicographers do. But when you THEN go on to assume that this was the basis for their decision at 3:14, you’re at the airport waiting for your train to land J

 

And while we are on this particular point, I referred to your asking me if I knew anything about the bracketed remarks in Grimm/Thayers at 3:14, and if I was “holding out” on you, which made me chuckle again. I responded that “No, I wouldn’t do that” and then recalled how earlier I had tried to help you and got accused of being dishonest as a result. You replied by saying that you had apologized, and that you wouldn’t have accused me if you didn’t think that things weren’t “adding up”. Well, obviously I believe that about you, but that’s beside the point.  My point was that when I do try to help you, you can’t seem to restrain the cultish  “boogie man around every corner” attitude, which then causes you to attack my motives, even before you know the facts. In your mind I’m either dishonest, or I invent and make things up. Such an attitude on your part is not exactly conducive to my continuing to want to help you when I can. One could even consider that as being a little “presumptuous” on your part, right?

 

Now this naturally leads into your asking me about Abbot, and your accusations against me on that score as well, that I just invented what I said. But as I’ve shown, I did not invent what I knew about Abbot either. Both Abbot and Thayer were experts in the area of textual variants and disputes. They were both quite adept at… “going looking” for  sources of reference to facilitate the tracing or etymology of words, whether biblical or extra-biblical. You see, Wrench, we know that Abbot had the expertise, and we know that he had the opportunity to write or say something, and we also know that he himself was a Unitarian. So if nothing specific and clear is said in this entry for “arche”, either against the orthodox view or favoring the opposing view, such a circumstance is more of a problem for your side than mine. Bottom line is that you’ve accused Grimm and the other Lexicons of “bias” based on their personal convictions, whether conscious or unconscious, and this has “corrupted” the truth (as you claim it to be) in their works. So, since you made the accusation, you have to verify it. After you accused me of “adding or inventing” something about Abbot, and I replied back, note your reaction:

 

“Sorry, if I misunderstood you. In one way I think I did but in another, possibly not. Let me try to explain. It appears that Abbot was an expert at ‘disputed passages’ as you have adequately shown. I thought that “variant verse notation” was nothing more than ‘variations’ on how verses were notated for reference. I now see that it did involve ‘text’. Again, sorry for my ‘greenness’ in this area. However, I think the question remains for this reason. It appears that what Abbot was doing was in relation to what I have always called “textual variants”, or, in other words,  not necessarily the rendition of the Greek words used but, the manuscript differences of the actual Greek, similar to what Bruce Metzger has done in his “The Text of the New testament”. This seems to be accurate in relation to what you said above as well, “The critical papers which he prepared ON DISPUTED PASSAGES were uncommonly thorough, and had no small influence in determining the TEXT finally accepted.” What he was doing was in relation to the text of the Greek that was disputed, not necessarily the translation of an “undisputed” Greek text.
So again, what bearing would his work have on Rev. 3:14, which the text is not disputed in? The “rendering” may be disputed, but the actual text of the Greek is not. He only commented on “disputed” texts of the Greek, not just disputed translation of the Greek or disputed “renderings” of the Greek, and since Rev. 3:14 is not a text that I have ever seen disputed as to the way it reads in the Greek, what bearing would Abbot’s work,  which would naturally not take him to Rev. 3:14 for a “textual variance”, have on whether or not Grimm’s choice was disputed by him. As I said before, he never got the chance, and now, that should be clear, because Rev. 3:14 IS NOT A DISPUTED TEXT OF THE GREEK! He would have had NO reason to go there yet. And, before he did get there, he died!”

 

Your logic escapes me, I must admit. What I can’t understand is how do you know how far along Abbot was when he croaked. Are you assuming he’s sitting at his desk, blind-folded & in a straight jacket? Apparently you have discovered some inside information that reveals something to the effect that “he was about half way through the manuscript or something like that, when he up and died on us”. I can’t speak to something like this, because to me it is nonsensical. This may sound silly, but I’m honestly trying to make some sense out of your point. Perhaps you are trying  (in your own mind) to put Abbot into a straight jacket…so that in your mind he sits there like a mechanical robot, following a rigid procedure of…first this...then that…and don’t jump ahead now, no-no Dr. Abbot, you can only go there if it has to do with such and such…no peeking ahead now, …and from this you calculate that he might be able to work his way about halfway through the variant verses of the New Testament  (without peeking ahead…or at any theological hot spots) when he suddenly died. And then you say to me,  “He would have had no reason to go there yet.”  Well, what reason did he need, Wrench, as a Unitarian? Your mind seems to be on the outskirts of reality about both Abbot and Thayer.

 

Note your words: “What he was doing was in relation to the text of the Greek that was disputed, not necessarily the translation of an “undisputed” Greek text. So again, what bearing would his work have on Rev. 3:14 which the text is not disputed in?”

 

 This seems so silly, but again, Thayer does not elaborate, but perhaps he could have emailed Dr.Thayer and said something like: “Hey, Joe, you know I don’t think we should let Grimm get away with this; you know such and such of the 1^st century flat contradicts what he says…and he was directly connected with apostolic influence”…etc.  Now honestly, Wrench, apart from the non-existence of computers and email in those days, since they WERE friends and neighbors, I just don’t think it’s a stretch that Abbot could have informed Thayer of something he just happened to know that would at least cancel out or neutralize Grimm’s position. That is, if he were AWARE of something that could do that. That’s what you seem to have such a hard time with. His fellow scholars make it clear that their decision is based on NT teaching elsewhere and not on word usage elsewhere.  In other words, Abbot and Thayer may have understood something that you don’t. What’s that? They just may have understood that word usage elsewhere, NO MATTER HOW MANY MILLIONS OF EXAMPLES THEY COULD CITE, would not adequately address Grimm’s reason for rejecting the “beginning of existence” meaning in 3:14, and so what COULD they do to undermine Grimm and the others?

 

Actually all I need is the possibility that he COULD have done that to undermine your charge of “bias, because all were trinitarians”. If you wish to sustain YOUR claim (in order to meet your goals and standards in your treatise), it’s up to you to prove that neither Abbot nor Thayer COULD HAVE in any way influenced, added or subtracted anything , or offered contrary remarks to Grimm…in other words, to sustain your previous claim that these reference books were the sole works of Trinitarians (with your use of the term “bias” lurking in the background)…against that backdrop, all our side needs is just the possibility of some oversight or influence from a non-trinitarian, and we have that, at the very least with Abbot, and probably with Thayer as well. But we will soon take another look at Thayer because of some evidence I have noticed only recently.

 

Now, please note your GREAT BIG ASSUMPTION as you write the following:

 

“…Abbot never got the chance to comment on Rev. 3:14 because it is not one of those DISPUTED passages of ‘textual variance’.”

 

…OK, Wrench, look intently at your words “never got the chance”, and let me ask you a question: When Abbot was going through the manuscript of this lexicon, was he breathing, and was his heart beating? If so, then he had “the chance”;-)