“Please explain this passage: ‘I will give him the morning star’ (Rev. 2:28). What is the ‘morning star’?”
This passage embraces one of the seven promises from Christ to those who “overcome” the trials and temptations of life and thus remain loyal to him to the end (see: Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21).
To the church at Thyatira, the Lord Jesus, therefore, says (regarding the one who overcomes):
“I will give him the morning star.”
There are two general ideas suggested as the meaning of this mysterious promise.
Christ Himself
Some scholars consider the reference to be to Christ himself. Professor Andrew Hill has written:
“Jesus Christ is described as the ‘morning star’ in 2 Peter 1:19 (phosphoros) and in Revelation 2:28 (aster proinos), and He identifies Himself as ‘the bright morning star’ (ho aster ho lampros ho proninos) in Revelation 22:16” (413).
He goes on to point out that this star symbolism reflects the Old Testament and inter-testament emphasis on the “celestial” or heavenly nature of the coming Messiah (cf. Num. 24:17; Mal. 4:2).
William Barclay suggested several ideas. He thought the expression could signify the coming resurrection of the righteous. Just as the “morning star” breaks forth from the darkness of night, so the Lord’s people will break out of the darkness of the grave (1957, 67).
Later, however, he came to a different conclusion. He was quite certain that the correct interpretation is this. The morning star is Christ himself.
“If the Christian is true, when life comes to an end he will possess Christ, never to lose him again” (1959, 140).
Objections to the Morning Star Being Identified as Christ
Some have objected to this view for a couple of reasons. It is alleged that since the evil “king of Babylon” is called “day-star, son of the morning” in Isaiah 14:12, the same symbol would not be appropriate for the Lord Jesus. Note: “day-star” (i.e., Lucifer, KJV) is not a reference to Satan as is commonly thought, but contextually is a reference to the king of Babylon (cf. Isa. 13:1).
However, this objection is nullified by the fact that Christ is unequivocally called “the bright, the morning star” in Revelation 22:16. Bible symbols are frequently used in a variety of ways, sometimes quite diversely, depending upon the context.
Another objection that has been argued is that since the Christian already “has Christ,” it would be meaningless to say that we somehow will be given him when we have overcome.
But this objection presents no real problem when we understand that many blessings come incrementally.
We are in the kingdom now (Col. 1:13), but there is a more glorious phase to yet be entered (2 Pet. 1:11). We enjoy salvation presently (Mk. 16:16), but there is a greater dimension — a heavenly salvation — to be received at death (2 Tim. 4:18). There is a sense in which we are with Christ now (Mt 18:20; 26:29; 28:20), but there is a more exalted state in which we will be with him ultimately (Phil. 1:23; 2 Cor. 5:8).
Another View: Splendor and Victory
Lenski thought that the imagery had to do with the royal splendor of Jesus.
“The adjective ‘of the morning’ suggests unfading, glorious brilliance both for Jesus in Rev. 22:16, and here [Rev. 2:28] for us. The Victorious King Jesus is the brilliant Morning Star in royal splendor; and he gives to every faithful believer the gift to be like him in royal splendor” (pp. 124-125).
The idea would be that the Lord’s people will partake of his victorious glow in the heavenly realm.
Another scholar, Professor Robert Wall, says that it seems likely that the morning star is a symbol of those Christians who overcome, by pointing to their “future participation in the triumph of God’s rule over all those secular and materialistic pretenders to the Lord’s throne” (79).
Similarly, Frank Pack suggested:
“The victorious Christian shares in Christ’s glorious triumph and authority, and possesses Christ as an everlasting treasure” (48).
Conclusion
It is easy to see that there are several reasonable interpretations as to the significance of “morning star” in Revelation 2:28, each of which is entirely consistent with information elsewhere in the biblical record.
One need not feel compelled to tie down to a specific view, so long as that view is not in conflict with other clear teachings of scripture.
The careful and courteous path for the devout Christian is to refrain from dogmatism when there is room for reasonable dissent.
Sources
Barclay, William. 1957. Letters to the Seven Churches. Abingdon: Nashville, TN.
Barclay, William. 1959. The Revelation of John. Vol. 1 Westminster: Philadelphia, PA.
Hill, Andrew E. 1986. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia — Revised. G. W. Bromiley, ed. Vol. 3. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI.
Lenski, R. C. H. 1963. The Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation. Augsburg: Minneapolis, MN.
Pack, Frank. 1984. The Message of the New Testament — The Revelation — 1. Vol. 1. Biblical Research Press:Abilene, TX.
Wall, Robert. 1991. New International Biblical Commentary — Revelation Hendrickson: Peabody, MA.
A distinguishing feature of the belief system of Jehovah’s Witnesses is their adamant contention that Jesus does not partake of deity. Instead, they claim that Jesus was the first created being. However, a careful consideration of the underlying Greek word πρωτότοκος reveals that Greek has two basic meanings for the word: (1) birth order/sequence, as in Luke 2:7 and Hebrews 11:28; and (2) having special status (like a firstborn son), hence, “supreme,” “superior,” “exalted,” “highest,” and even possessing “sovereignty.”1 A host of the world’s Greek scholars have weighed in on the meaning of “firstborn.”2 Respected Greek scholar Bruce Metzger observes: “The adjective ‘first’ refers both to rank as well as time. The Apostle alludes here not only to Christ’s priority to all creation, but also to his sovereignty over all creation.”3 Conservative commentator Donald Guthrie noted: “Firstborn must be understood in the sense of supreme rather than in the temporal sense of born.”4 J.R. Dummelow of Cambridge explains: “The word expresses priority to and then supremacy over. Probably the latter only is meant here.”5 In the Beacon Bible Commentary series, John Nielson observes: “Paul is saying that Jesus Christ is none other than God Himself…. ‘firstborn’ is equivalent to ‘only begotten,’ and is a Jewish technical term meaning ‘uncreated’.”6
A good summary of the linguistic data pertaining to “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 is provided by William Barclay’s insightful observations given in his popular commentary series:
We will remember that according to the Gnostics the work of creation was carried out by an inferior god, ignorant of and hostile to the true God. It is Paul’s teaching that God’s agent in creation is the Son and in this passage he has four things to say of the Son in regard to creation. (i) He is the firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15). We must be very careful to attach the right meaning to this phrase. As it stands in English it might well mean the Son was the first person to be created, but in Hebrew and Greek thought the word firstborn (prototokos) has only very indirectly a time significance. There are two things to note. Firstborn is very commonly a title of honour. Israel, for instance, as a nation is the firstborn son of God (Exodus 4:22). The meaning is that the nation of Israel is the most favoured child of God. Second, we must note that firstborn is a title of the Messiah. In Psalms 89:27, as the Jews themselves interpreted it, the promise regarding the Messiah is “I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.” Clearly firstborn is not used in a time sense at all, but in the sense of special honour. So when Paul says of the Son that he is the firstborn of all creation, he means that the highest honour which creation holds belongs to him. If we wish to keep the time sense and the honour sense combined, we may translate the phrase: “He was begotten before all creation.”7
Accordingly, Jesus is not part of the creation. He stands above and before all created things. He is, in fact, the Creator.
Apart from these scholarly observations, which could be multiplied many times over, the biblical text itself serves as its own best interpreter. The word “for” (ὅτι) is the Greek conjunction/marker of causality8 meaning “because”—even as the New World Translation renders it. By use of the term, Paul explains and defines the meaning of “firstborn” in the context, answering the question, “In what way is Jesus the ‘firstborn’” or “how can He be considered ‘firstborn’”? Look at the Holy Spirit’s answer: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” FOR—
By Him all things were created (vs. 16).
All things were created through Him (vs. 16).
All things were created for Him (vs. 16).
He is before all things (vs. 17).
In Him all things consist/inhere (vs. 17).
In all things He has the preeminence (vs. 18).
In Him all the fullness dwells (vs. 19).
Hence, for Jesus to be “firstborn” means that He is the Creator Who precedes all created things and in Whom dwells the fullness of divinity. [Examine the graphics below.]
The expression “all things” (τὰ πάντα) is used four times in Colossians 1:16-17 to refer to all things that were created, including both the created order, i.e., the material Universe, as well as the spirit realm—“in heaven and…on earth” (cf. Ephesians 1:10; 3:9). English theologian and biblical commentator Daniel Whitby commented: “Now he who is therefore the First-born of the whole Creation, because he created all things, cannot himself be any part of the Creation, either in Heaven or Earth, or be numbered amongst his Creatures…. Christ is here styled the First-born, as being the Lord of all things.”9 The book of Colossians alone is sufficient to establish the deity of Christ and, therefore, the fatal error of Jehovah’s Witness doctrine.
Interestingly, the New World Translation, perhaps unwittingly, provides support for these observations in its rendering in Colossians 2:9—“because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.” The NKJV renders the verse: “For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” Here is a verse that forthrightly declares that Jesus possesses deity. For if the whole fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ, then deity resides in Christ. Metzger rightly declared:
Nothing could be clearer or more emphatic than this declaration. It means that everything without exception which goes to make up the godhead, or divine quality, dwells or resides in Jesus Christ bodily, that is, is invested with a body in Jesus Christ. It is to be noticed also that Paul uses the present tense of the verb, “dwells.” He does not say that the fullness of the divine quality “has dwelt” or “will dwell” in Jesus Christ, but that it “dwells” there.10
In his discussion of the “Colossian Heresy,” celebrated English theologian and Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, J.B. Lightfoot, discusses Paul’s responses to the forces that endangered the faith of the Colossian Christians, which included a firm declaration of the deity of Christ. Referring to Jesus, Lightfoot observed: “He is the visible image of the invisible God. He is not only the chief manifestation of the Divine nature: He exhausts the Godhead manifested. In Him resides the totality of the Divine powers and attributes.”11 He summarizes the meaning of “firstborn”:
The main ideas then which the word involves are twofold…. (1) Priority to all creation. In other words it declares the absolute pre-existence of the Son. At first sight it might seem that Christ is here regarded as one, though the earliest, of created beings. This interpretation, however, is not required by the expression itself…. And if this sense is not required by the words themselves, it is directly excluded by the context. It is inconsistent alike with the universal agency in creation which is ascribed to Him in the words following, ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα [“in him were created all things”—DM] and with the absolute pre-existence and self-existence which is claimed for Him just below, αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων [“he is before all things”—DM]…. (2) Sovereignty over all creation…. “He is the Firstborn, and, as the Firstborn, the absolute Heir and sovereign Lord, of all creation.”12
Lightfoot also points out that prototokos/firstborn cannot be allowed to create inconsistency with another term that the Bible uses to describe Christ, i.e., monogenes—defined as “alone of His kind and therefore distinct from created things.”13 To summarize, Lightfoot rightly notes that verse 15 explains the sense in which “firstborn over all creation” is to be understood: “Thus connected, it shows that the πρωτότοκος [firstborn—DM] Himself is not included in πάσa ktivsi$ [“all creation”—DM].” Indeed, Jesus is not a created being. Since Scripture is its own best interpreter, observe the obvious comparison between Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1—a comparison that further demonstrates the divinity of Christ is seen below.
To summarize, the allusion to “firstborn” to refer to Christ in Colossians 1:15 does not mean that Jesus was a created being. The Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments, repeatedly indicates that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh—Who came to Earth to atone for human sin. This singular doctrine is, in fact, the heart and core of the one and only true religion on Earth: Christianity.14
Endnotes
1 Frederick Danker, et al. (2000), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago), p. 894.
2 The reader is urged to examine the great “Arian controversy” that transpired in the early 4th century between Arius and Athanasius. Arius taught that “the Son came into being through the will of the Father; the Son, therefore, had a beginning. Although the Son was before all eternity, he was not eternal, and Father and Son were not of the same essence”—Hans J. Hillerbrand and Matt Stefon (2022), “Christology: The Arian Controversy,” Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christology/The-Arian-controversy.
3 Bruce Metzger (1953), “The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal,” Theology Today, 10[1]:77.
4 Donald Guthrie (1970), New Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), p. 1144, emp. added.
5 J.R. Dummelow (1925), A Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: Macmillan), p. 981, emp. added.
6 John Nielson (1965), Colossians in Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press), p. 379.
7 William Barclay (1959), The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster), p. 143, emp. added.
8 Nigel Turner (1963), Syntax in A Grammar of New Testament Greek, ed. James Moulton (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark), 3:86; Danker, p. 732.
9 Daniel Whitby (1709), A Paraphrase and Commentary on the New Testament (London: W. Bowyer), 1:353.
11 J.B. Lightfoot (1892), Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (London: Macmillan), p. 100, emp. added. When the New Testament states that Jesus is the “image of God,” it cannot refer to the same idea that human beings are created “in the image of God” (Genesis 1:27). In both Colossians and 2 Corinthians (4:4), Paul states—not that Jesus is made in God’s image—but that Jesus IS God’s image.
12 Ibid., pp. 145-146, italics in orig., emp. added.
13 Ibid., emp. added. As one would expect, it is John who uses monogenes repeatedly to refer to Jesus’ unique status (John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9). The English rendering “only begotten” is generally rejected by linguistic authorities. The lexicographers are fairly uniform in their definitions of the term. Danker has “(1) pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only, only…. (2) pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind) of something that is the only example of its category”—Danker, p. 658, italics in orig. Moulton and Milligan give the same definition: “literally ‘one of a kind,’ ‘only,’ ‘unique’ (unicus)”—and further note that “only begotten” is incorrect since that Greek word would be monogennetos—James Moulton and George Milligan (1930), Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982 reprint), pp. 416-417, italics in orig. See also Thayer, p. 417. In his monumental 1894 volume The Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour, H.P. Liddon defines monogenes as “that which exists once only, that is, singly in its kind”—(London: Longmans, Green, & Co.), p. 233.
REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.
Most ancient authors who wrote about historic events have often been proven wrong when archaeologists and historians uncover details about the facts in question. In fact, it is not uncommon to discover that even modern historians are forced to issue retractions, correct errant statements, or publish revised editions of their books. Generally speaking, as more accurate information is uncovered about a certain historical event, the more the ancient authors who attempted to chronicle it are shown to have missed details and made mistakes. One collection of books, however, enjoys the singular distinction of being correct about everything it records. In fact, as more information comes to light concerning the events it relates, the more the text is validated, and often vindicated, from fallacious accusations of error. Archaeology repeatedly confirms the details documented in the books of the Bible.
Often, the archaeological discoveries come in the humblest of forms. For instance, in 2012, the Israel Antiquities Authority announced that researchers discovered a small piece of clay, known as a bulla, that was about half an inch across, roughly the size of an adult thumbnail. A bulla is a clay seal or stamp that people used in ancient times to “tag” certain items, somewhat like how we in modern times would have a tag on a shirt, or a brand insignia printed on a cup. This bulla proved to be remarkable because it contained a Hebrew inscription from 2,700 years ago, documenting that it came from the town of Bethlehem, in Judah, the birthplace of Jesus.1This inscription is the oldest extrabiblical archaeological evidence of the town of Bethlehem that plays such a prominent role in the birth story of Christ. Furthermore, it was from this town that the prophet Micah predicted the Messiah would come, approximately 700 years before Jesus was born (Micah 5:2). And the bulla dates very close to the time of Micah, between 800-700 B.C., putting it roughly around the time of King Hezekiah.
While this find stands as excellent evidence of the Bible’s accuracy, it is not unusual. Thousands of discoveries across the centuries have validated the biblical text and proven it to be the most accurate ancient material ever penned. The prophet Isaiah once challenged the idolators of his day, by calling on their idols to “show the former things, what they were, that we may consider them” (Isaiah 41:22). God’s point through the prophet was clear: the God who gets all the historical facts right, every time, without a single error, is the true God. Through the pages of the Bible, God accepted His own challenge to the false idols, and has repeatedly shown what really happened in the past, so we can know that the God of the Bible is the true God.
Endnotes
1 “History of Bethlethem Documented by First Temple Period Bulla from the City of David” (2019), Biblical Archaeology Society, https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/earliest-history-of-bethlehem-documented-by-first-temple-period-bulla-from-the-city-of-david/.
REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.
In 2010, headlines declared that scientists made “artificial life.”1 It became quite the buzz when scientists with the J. Craig Venter Institute developed their first version of the so-called “minimal cell.”2As we would soon learn, the researchers had accomplished an amazing technical feat, but it was far from creating life. Instead, we learned that the researchers had to borrow from existing life all the instructions and machinery in addition to the actual cell structure for their “artificial life.”
Fast forward to 2026, headlines buzz again with questions like, “Did scientists just create life?” While this latest research is again technically very impressive, it is a far cry from creating new life. Interestingly, we are hearing about this research, not after it is published in a high-profile journal following peer review, but because it was placed onto what is known as a preprint server called bioRxiv (pronounced bio-archive). This is where researchers can upload their research manuscripts and allow other researchers to see and study their work before it gets published. Many researchers are utilizing this avenue to get their work in front of the research community more quickly. They can post a preprint of their article while it makes its way through the peer review system, which can take months and, in some cases, more than a year!
The research paper in this case is called “A Chemically Defined Synthetic Cell Capable of Growth and Replication,” which seems to be an impressive title.3 The claims made based upon the paper by some news sources and scientists may tend to give the sense that these researchers have created life. But what did they actually do?
Lead researcher Kate Amadala and her team nicknamed it “SpudCell.”4 The cute name refers to an experimental system they have set up that uses lipids to make a compartment (like what surrounds living cells) and insert into this system a series of components to give this “cell” the ability to perform some of the functions of living cells. The authors are clear in their text: SpudCell metabolizes nutrients in only an incredibly limited sense—it’s not designed to. The desire here was to try to simplify things as much as possible. It is also worth noting that the researchers themselves do not claim to have created “life” but only a synthetic “cell.”
SpudCell is described as having a “genome” made of seven or eight small DNA molecules (called plasmids) totaling about 90,000 DNA bases that encode some proteins that the system needs. But to make the proteins from the DNA, they provide SpudCell with most of the machinery already assembled. For instance, the researchers provided ribosomes, which perform translation to build proteins from RNA information, built by bacterial cells. In addition, they provide a DNA polymerase to facilitate copying the DNA molecules.
The side effect of forcing a small genome is that many nutrients, proteins, macromolecules, and molecular machines (like the polymerase just mentioned) had to be provided to the system. In fact, the system had to be provided with high concentrations of these resources to avoid collapse. To help cells “grow” in size, the authors delivered new proteins and machinery needed by the cell using lipid vesicles that could fuse with the membrane, releasing their cargo and adding to the size of the membrane.
SpudCell cannot divide on its own. The researchers use two different ways to try to make it divide. One method essentially is like a mechanical extruder that squeezes oil through a strainer and gets smaller bubbles of oil—not life-like! The other mechanism used some proteins borrowed from biotechnology tools to try to force the “bubbles” to divide. The authors acknowledge that these systems are not perfect and do not allow for endless division. The first mechanism allowed about five divisions before things broke down. The second mechanism only allowed one division because there was no way to guarantee that components would be portioned out.
This brings up another important issue: SpudCell did not always divide evenly, meaning that DNA, proteins, and other components were not partitioned carefully as they are in real living cells. Further, the authors claim to have made a form of “selection” where they engineered a genetic advantage, which enabled SpudCells that received the advantage to predominate over others in the system.
While this is an impressive biochemical feat, it begs the question: if it takes this much effort to design something that isn’t even alive, what does that say about real life?The authors have gone to extensive lengths to carefully design every aspect of this experimental system. Their end product, while fascinating and impressive, is a far cry from anything considered truly “alive.” While I do not have an objection to researchers who want to explore the lower limits of living organisms to determine what makes something “alive,” I think we need to honestly reflect on what has been done here. These researchers have borrowed features of living cells and used tools created for research and combined them into a system that only vaguely looks like a living system.
Have researchers created synthetic life? No, not really. Did they create life from non-life? Definitely not. Nor does it appear that the ability to do so is getting any easier the more we learn about life. Instead, these researchers unintentionally demonstrated that extensive intelligent design is required even to engineer a highly simplified, nonliving cell-like system capable of performing a few basic functions.
REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.
