Non-Trinitarian
December 23rd 2003, 04:15 PM
I have read Dee Dee's article and this is my response.
The verse most commonly in discussion is Rev 22:13. Here one speaks who says he is coming and that he is the Alpha and Omega (A&O). The issue is who is speaking here. Right off the back we need to use caution in being dogmatic on this point. We see multiple speakers in just this short frame of verses. For instance, in vs 6 the angel is speaking. In verse 7 the angel is speaking for Jesus. In verse 8 John is speaking. The angel again speaks in verses 9-11. We see Jesus speaking in verse 16 but this no more proves he is the speaker in verse 15 than John’s speaking in verse 8 means he was the speaker in verse 7. In verse 17 we see the spirit and the bride speaking. Jesus speaks again in verses 18 and 19 and John speaks again in verse 20. The question is, ‘Who is speaking in verses 12-15?’
That Jesus identifies himself as the speaker in verse 16 suggest a change in speaker from verse 15 but I see no reason to be dogmatic on that point alone. It would be foolish for any of us to dogmatically say that we know who is speaking where. For instance, the KJ and the New American Bible have the same speaker in verse 12 and 13 but not in verse 14 and 15. In contrast, the NIV and the New Living Bible have the same speaker from verse 12-16. Obviously personal opinion and preference are at work here. Is this what we want to base our faith off? With so many clear scriptures on who Jesus is, resorting to this argument, in which bible translators cannot even agree on, is quite shaky.
But the text can give us some clue as to who is speaking. Does the phrase “I am coming” serve as proof it is Jesus who is speaking?
JW’s recognize that both the Father and the Son are spoken of as “coming” in the final judgement so the fact that the A&O is said to be “coming” does not prove it is Christ speaking. For instance, consider Rev 1:4,8. In these verses the “One who is, who was and who is coming” is differentiated from Jesus Christ. Thus, more will be needed in order to prove this is Christ speaking as both God and Jesus are coming. Jesus, as God’s representative is coming but being God’s representative means God is coming too. Thus, the phrase “I am coming” is not that helpful in identifying who the speaker is. The prophetic language in the OT of God ‘coming’ through his representative, Jesus, is still valid in the NT.
The other argument is that the speaker uses the phrase “The first and the Last” (F&L) and Jesus applied this title to himself. It is difficult for me to address Dee Dee’s argument head on because she is arguing against a view that JW’s do not hold. That is, the explanation of the meaning of “The First and Last” as used by Christ by the unitarians she is in discussion with is not our understanding.
We recognize that Jesus applied the title F&L to himself twice and that Jehovah used the same title for himself. However, same titles do not mean equality or the same person. Both Jesus and Nebuchadnezzar were called “King of kings”. Jesus gave himself the title “Light of the World” and yet he gave this same title to his followers. They are not equal with Jesus though they share the same title. Jehovah gave the same title to men (“God”) that He gives to Himself. Other titles shared by God and/or Jesus and humans are “savior”, “Adam”, “son of God”, and “son of man”, along with a few others. None of these titles automatically denote equality of one to the other. Context of the scriptures tells us what these titles mean. So what does the context tell us about Jesus’ use of the title F&L?
In BOTH instances when Jesus applies the title to himself, he includes with it the meaning behind it. And you will note that Jehovah does NOT include this meaning with the title when He applies it to Himself Isaiah and the usage at Rev 22:13 also does not contain this clause. Please note these instances:
“Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, and the living one; and I became dead but look! I am living forever and ever.”-Rev 1:17
“These are the things he says, ‘the First and the Last’, who became dead and came to life.”-Rev 2:8
JW’s feel it is significant that in both instances where Jesus’ uses the title F&L, he immediately mentions his death and resurrection. Obviously Jehovah does not include this distinction in His title for the simple fact that God cannot die (see Hab 1:12). Thus, while Jesus uses the same title as God, it is with a qualification of his death and resurrection. The only other time the expression F&L appears in Revelation is at Rev 22:13 but in this instance, the instance in question, the qualification of it referring to his death and resurrection does not appear. Thus, we do not believe the title F&L as used in Rev 1:17 and 2:8 is the same as it is used at Rev 22:13.
Furthermore, while Jesus does use the title F&L, he does not use the title A&O in an undisputed verse. In fact, the main crutch of even saying that the A&O title at Rev 22:13 comes from Jesus’ lips is because of the F&L title, which is not used in the same sense as when Jesus undeniably used it. This connect-the-dots approach of trying to link Jesus to the Alpha and Omega title is far from convincing.
It is argued that Christ is the A&O at 1:8 but this same verse also includes the title of “The One who is, who was and who is coming.”(OHWC) In verse 4 we see this title is separated from Christ. Now to Dee Dee’s credit, she does attempt to explain why this is okay by stating that unitarians already allow different ones to have the same title so even if the title of OHWC in verse 4 is not applied to Jesus, this is not proof that it is not applied to him in verse 8. She thus argues that a double-standard is used between identifying the A&O in Rev 1:4,8 and the F&L in Rev 2:8 and 22:13. But again, this isn’t really the case as we see a noted difference between the usage of the F&L titles. And while she may be right that Rev 1:4,8 does not absolutely prove Jesus is not being referred to in verse 8 as it is possible for two people to have the same title, there is definitely more proof he isn’t the one referred to than there is that he is.
Thus, so far the proof of Jesus being the A&O is by more assertion than fact. The final mention of A&O is found at Rev 21:6. Is this Jesus speaking? The evidence suggests no. Verse 5 says the one speaking is on the throne. However, Rev 5:7,13; 6:16 and 7:10 all depict someone OTHER than Jesus sitting on the throne. Jesus is distinctly shown to not be on the throne in these verses. Now it could be argued that God got up and Jesus say down but such is opinion at best and, to be honest, I have never heard a Trinitarian suggest that. Furthermore, the following verse, vs 7, says “anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son.” This almost nails the coffin that it isn’t Jesus because he called his faithful followers his “brothers” and we all agree Jesus is not the Father. (see Heb 2:11, Matt 12:50 and 25:40) Christians are “sons”, not by Jesus, but by God. (see Gal 3:26; 4:6). And of course, while this is a small thing as it the red-lettered editions are not gospel, the King James and New Living Translation do not show Jesus as speaking, perhaps because of the reasons I mentioned. Either way, we can see that the argument that Jesus is the A&O in this verse is weak.
Outside of Rev 22:13, the other two times A&O appears the evidence against it being Jesus far outweighs any evidence for it being him. Thus, when we come to the third time it appears, with the odds being that it was not him the other two times, we feel comfortable saying it is not him this time either. The evidence for it being him (the “coming” and the F&L title) is too weak and subjective. The evidence is mostly assertion and in the end, it’s Dee Dee’s opinion versus mine. With hundreds of scriptures clearly showing Jesus is someone other than God, this connect-the-dots approach is nothing I would want to hang my faith on.
I'll be out until next Monday but go ahead and submit a rebuttal if you want. Unless you have some different arguments than what was in your article, I probably won't reply other than to say that now people can see both sides.
I will admit that when I get to Revelation, I am already holding as an a priori that Jesus is not God. But you have the a priori that he is. Thus, to think that either one of us can "prove" Jesus is God or not God on any one or two arguments would be foolish. That is why I won't sit and try to debate one argument. Our faiths, hopefully, are built on many verses and we must consider them all before drawing a conclusion.
The verse most commonly in discussion is Rev 22:13. Here one speaks who says he is coming and that he is the Alpha and Omega (A&O). The issue is who is speaking here. Right off the back we need to use caution in being dogmatic on this point. We see multiple speakers in just this short frame of verses. For instance, in vs 6 the angel is speaking. In verse 7 the angel is speaking for Jesus. In verse 8 John is speaking. The angel again speaks in verses 9-11. We see Jesus speaking in verse 16 but this no more proves he is the speaker in verse 15 than John’s speaking in verse 8 means he was the speaker in verse 7. In verse 17 we see the spirit and the bride speaking. Jesus speaks again in verses 18 and 19 and John speaks again in verse 20. The question is, ‘Who is speaking in verses 12-15?’
That Jesus identifies himself as the speaker in verse 16 suggest a change in speaker from verse 15 but I see no reason to be dogmatic on that point alone. It would be foolish for any of us to dogmatically say that we know who is speaking where. For instance, the KJ and the New American Bible have the same speaker in verse 12 and 13 but not in verse 14 and 15. In contrast, the NIV and the New Living Bible have the same speaker from verse 12-16. Obviously personal opinion and preference are at work here. Is this what we want to base our faith off? With so many clear scriptures on who Jesus is, resorting to this argument, in which bible translators cannot even agree on, is quite shaky.
But the text can give us some clue as to who is speaking. Does the phrase “I am coming” serve as proof it is Jesus who is speaking?
JW’s recognize that both the Father and the Son are spoken of as “coming” in the final judgement so the fact that the A&O is said to be “coming” does not prove it is Christ speaking. For instance, consider Rev 1:4,8. In these verses the “One who is, who was and who is coming” is differentiated from Jesus Christ. Thus, more will be needed in order to prove this is Christ speaking as both God and Jesus are coming. Jesus, as God’s representative is coming but being God’s representative means God is coming too. Thus, the phrase “I am coming” is not that helpful in identifying who the speaker is. The prophetic language in the OT of God ‘coming’ through his representative, Jesus, is still valid in the NT.
The other argument is that the speaker uses the phrase “The first and the Last” (F&L) and Jesus applied this title to himself. It is difficult for me to address Dee Dee’s argument head on because she is arguing against a view that JW’s do not hold. That is, the explanation of the meaning of “The First and Last” as used by Christ by the unitarians she is in discussion with is not our understanding.
We recognize that Jesus applied the title F&L to himself twice and that Jehovah used the same title for himself. However, same titles do not mean equality or the same person. Both Jesus and Nebuchadnezzar were called “King of kings”. Jesus gave himself the title “Light of the World” and yet he gave this same title to his followers. They are not equal with Jesus though they share the same title. Jehovah gave the same title to men (“God”) that He gives to Himself. Other titles shared by God and/or Jesus and humans are “savior”, “Adam”, “son of God”, and “son of man”, along with a few others. None of these titles automatically denote equality of one to the other. Context of the scriptures tells us what these titles mean. So what does the context tell us about Jesus’ use of the title F&L?
In BOTH instances when Jesus applies the title to himself, he includes with it the meaning behind it. And you will note that Jehovah does NOT include this meaning with the title when He applies it to Himself Isaiah and the usage at Rev 22:13 also does not contain this clause. Please note these instances:
“Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, and the living one; and I became dead but look! I am living forever and ever.”-Rev 1:17
“These are the things he says, ‘the First and the Last’, who became dead and came to life.”-Rev 2:8
JW’s feel it is significant that in both instances where Jesus’ uses the title F&L, he immediately mentions his death and resurrection. Obviously Jehovah does not include this distinction in His title for the simple fact that God cannot die (see Hab 1:12). Thus, while Jesus uses the same title as God, it is with a qualification of his death and resurrection. The only other time the expression F&L appears in Revelation is at Rev 22:13 but in this instance, the instance in question, the qualification of it referring to his death and resurrection does not appear. Thus, we do not believe the title F&L as used in Rev 1:17 and 2:8 is the same as it is used at Rev 22:13.
Furthermore, while Jesus does use the title F&L, he does not use the title A&O in an undisputed verse. In fact, the main crutch of even saying that the A&O title at Rev 22:13 comes from Jesus’ lips is because of the F&L title, which is not used in the same sense as when Jesus undeniably used it. This connect-the-dots approach of trying to link Jesus to the Alpha and Omega title is far from convincing.
It is argued that Christ is the A&O at 1:8 but this same verse also includes the title of “The One who is, who was and who is coming.”(OHWC) In verse 4 we see this title is separated from Christ. Now to Dee Dee’s credit, she does attempt to explain why this is okay by stating that unitarians already allow different ones to have the same title so even if the title of OHWC in verse 4 is not applied to Jesus, this is not proof that it is not applied to him in verse 8. She thus argues that a double-standard is used between identifying the A&O in Rev 1:4,8 and the F&L in Rev 2:8 and 22:13. But again, this isn’t really the case as we see a noted difference between the usage of the F&L titles. And while she may be right that Rev 1:4,8 does not absolutely prove Jesus is not being referred to in verse 8 as it is possible for two people to have the same title, there is definitely more proof he isn’t the one referred to than there is that he is.
Thus, so far the proof of Jesus being the A&O is by more assertion than fact. The final mention of A&O is found at Rev 21:6. Is this Jesus speaking? The evidence suggests no. Verse 5 says the one speaking is on the throne. However, Rev 5:7,13; 6:16 and 7:10 all depict someone OTHER than Jesus sitting on the throne. Jesus is distinctly shown to not be on the throne in these verses. Now it could be argued that God got up and Jesus say down but such is opinion at best and, to be honest, I have never heard a Trinitarian suggest that. Furthermore, the following verse, vs 7, says “anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son.” This almost nails the coffin that it isn’t Jesus because he called his faithful followers his “brothers” and we all agree Jesus is not the Father. (see Heb 2:11, Matt 12:50 and 25:40) Christians are “sons”, not by Jesus, but by God. (see Gal 3:26; 4:6). And of course, while this is a small thing as it the red-lettered editions are not gospel, the King James and New Living Translation do not show Jesus as speaking, perhaps because of the reasons I mentioned. Either way, we can see that the argument that Jesus is the A&O in this verse is weak.
Outside of Rev 22:13, the other two times A&O appears the evidence against it being Jesus far outweighs any evidence for it being him. Thus, when we come to the third time it appears, with the odds being that it was not him the other two times, we feel comfortable saying it is not him this time either. The evidence for it being him (the “coming” and the F&L title) is too weak and subjective. The evidence is mostly assertion and in the end, it’s Dee Dee’s opinion versus mine. With hundreds of scriptures clearly showing Jesus is someone other than God, this connect-the-dots approach is nothing I would want to hang my faith on.
I'll be out until next Monday but go ahead and submit a rebuttal if you want. Unless you have some different arguments than what was in your article, I probably won't reply other than to say that now people can see both sides.
I will admit that when I get to Revelation, I am already holding as an a priori that Jesus is not God. But you have the a priori that he is. Thus, to think that either one of us can "prove" Jesus is God or not God on any one or two arguments would be foolish. That is why I won't sit and try to debate one argument. Our faiths, hopefully, are built on many verses and we must consider them all before drawing a conclusion.