Christ – The Alpha and the Omega by Dee Dee Warren

[Dee Dee Warren]

Ani, my article is located here on this site, and as my article, I have the right to choose how the conversations will include or not include. I do not wish to exclude RightIdea, and I will respond to your post on the thread already in progress for my article.

Unless you protest, I will ask the Area Moderator to merge this thread into that thread. If you protest, you will find me absent from this thread and still responding on that one thread for ease of reference so that all the arguments I demolish can be find in one place.

Oh, and I have other fish to fry first, so you will be waiting a bit. But rest assured, I will eventually respond.

[Ani Uriyah]

Do as you will.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Okay I will have it taken care of and have the link PMd to you so that you will be able to find it.

[Ani Uriyah]

Okay.

[AVmetro]

Ani Uriyah stated:

Who is sitting on the throne? It cannot be Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach, for he is the Lamb that takes the scroll from the one sitting on the throne. Also notice by the blood of the Lamb (master Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach) he ransomed for Elohim, and he made us to be a kingdom and priests serving our Elohim (who is the Ha’Mashiyach). The one sitting on the throne is not actually the true Elohim himself, it is a representation of the true Elohim (the true Elohim is omnipresent, and something omnipresent does not have a shape; as soon as omnipresent takes a shape it shows has edges which means that something is no omnipresent anymore), this is a vision that is being given to John, clearly showing the Lamb and the true Elohim are not the same and are two individuals.

Actually, an omnipresent being can take a form and yet remain omnipresent. Simply because your visual of Elohim is limited does not mean that His presence is. I don't see why this would be a difficult thing to grasp.

Thanks and God bless--IM

[Dee Dee Warren]

Since the thread in question is in the newsbank area, I will do the merge when I can. Until then, converse here as all the posts will get moved.

[OldShepherd]

Don't know if this is the right place or not. If not, please feel free to move it to the appropriate thread. Other than stating that the OP is a keeper I want to post some quotes from and links to the ECF, who all state that Jesus does state He is the [greek]A[/greek] and [greek]W[/greek], Alpha and Omega, in Revelation. I have been unable to find any ECF who refers to the Alpha and Omega, who states any other view.

• Hippolytus. The Refutation of All Heresies, Book VI
  
  Also in the Gospel according to John, the Lord says: "And this is life eternal, that they should know Thee, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent. I have glorified Thee on the earth: I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do. And now, do Thou glorify me with Thyself, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was made." Also Paul to the Colossians: "Who is the image of the invisible God, and the first-born of every creature." Also in the same place: "The first-born from the dead, that He might in all things become the holder of the pre-eminence." In the Apocalypse too: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto Him that is thirsting from the fountain of the water of life freely." That He also is both the wisdom and the power of God, Paul proves in his first Epistle to the Corinthians. "Because the Jews require a sign, and the Creeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews indeed a stumbling-block, and to the Gentiles foolishness; but to them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."
  
  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-122.htm
  
  The Letters Of St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I.
  
  18. He raises the objection that when God gave his second blessing, permission was granted to eat flesh, which had not in the first benediction been allowed. He should know that just as divorce according to the Saviour's word was not permitted from the beginning, but on account of the hardness of our heart was a concession of Moses to the human race, so too the eating of flesh was unknown until the deluge. But after the deluge, like the quails given in the desert to the murmuring people, the poison of flesh-meat was offered to our teeth. The Apostle writing to the Ephesians teaches that God had purposed in the fulness of time to sum up and renew in Christ Jesus all things which are in heaven and in earth. Whence also the Saviour himself in the Revelation of John says, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending." At the beginning of the human race we neither ate flesh, nor gave bills of divorce, nor suffered circumcision for a sign. Thus we reached the deluge. But after the deluge, together with the giving of the law which no one could fulfil, flesh was given for food, and divorce was allowed to hard-hearted men, and the knife of circumcision was applied, as though the hand of God had fashioned us with something superfluous. But once Christ has come in the end of time, and Omega passed into Alpha and turned the end into the beginning, we are no longer allowed divorce, nor are we circumcised, nor do we eat flesh, for the Apostle says, "It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine." For wine as well as flesh was consecrated after the deluge.
  
  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-10.htm
  
  Origen's, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book I
  
  But Luke, though he says at the beginning of Acts, "The former treatise did I make about all that Jesus began to do and to teach," yet leaves to him who lay on Jesus' breast the greatest and completest discourses about Jesus. For none of these plainly declared His Godhead, as John does when he makes Him say, "I am the light of the world," "I am the way and the truth and the life," "I am the resurrection, "I am the door," "I am the good shepherd; "and in the Apocalypse, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." We may therefore make bold to say that the Gospels are the first fruits of all the Scriptures, but that of the Gospels that of John is the first fruits.
  
  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-37.htm
  
  St. Ambrose, Exposition of the Christian Faith, Book II.
  
  35. But hear also such a passage as you can build no doubts upon: "Behold, He cometh," saith the Scripture, "with the clouds, and every eye shall see Him, and they which pierced Him, and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn because of Him. Yea, amen. I am Alpha and Omega, saith the Lord God, Who is, and Who was, and Who is to come, the Almighty." Whom, I ask, did they pierce? For Whose coming hope we but the Son's? Therefore, Christ is Almighty Lord, and God.
  
  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-10/Npnf2-10-24.htm
  
  Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, Book I.
  
  Thus, then, the milk which is perfect is perfect nourishment, and brings to that consummation which cannot cease. Wherefore also the same milk and honey were promised in the rest. Rightly, therefore, the Lord again promises milk to the righteous, that the Word may be clearly shown to be both, "the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end;" the Word being figuratively represented as milk.
  
  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-52.htm
  
  Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse IV
  
  And this John enables us to do, who says in the Apocalypse, `I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are they who make broad their robes, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever maketh and loveth a lie. I Jesus have sent My Angel, to testify these things in the Churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star. And the Spirit and the Bride say, Come; and let him that heareth say, Come; and let him that is athirst, Come; and whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely .' If then `the Offspring of David' be the `Bright and Morning Star,' it is plain that the flesh of the Saviour is called `the Morning Star,' which the Offspring from God preceded; so that the sense of the Psalm is this, `I have begotten Thee from Myself before Thy appearance in the flesh;' for `before the Morning Star' is equivalent to `before the Incarnation of the Word.'
  
  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-62.htm
  
  Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor. [Paedagogus.], Book VI
  
  The sensible types of these, then, are the sounds we pronounce. Thus the Lord Himself is called "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end," "by whom all things were made, and without whom not even one thing was made." God's resting is not, then, as some conceive, that God ceased from doing.
  
  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-67.htm
  
  Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor. [Paedagogus.], Book IV
  
  God, then, being not a subject for demonstration, cannot be the object of science. But the Son is wisdom, and knowledge, and truth, and all else that has affinity thereto. He is also susceptible of demonstration and of description. And all the powers of the Spirit, becoming collectively one thing, terminate in the same point-that is, in the Son. But He is incapable of being declared, in respect of the idea of each one of His powers. And the Son is neither simply one thing as one thing, nor many things as parts, but one thing as all things; whence also He is all things. For He is the circle of all powers rolled and united into one unity. Wherefore the Word is called the Alpha and the Omega, of whom alone the end becomes beginning, and ends again at the original beginning without any break.Wherefore also to believe in Him, and by Him, is to become a unit, being indissolubly united in Him; and to disbelieve is to be separated, disjoined, divided.
  
  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-63.htm
  
  
  Cyprian, Three Books of Testimonies, Second book. (ca. 248 AD)
  
  Also Paul to the Colossians: "Who is the image of the invisible God, and the first-born of every creature."[4] Also in the same place: "The first-born from the dead, that He might in all things become the holder of the pre-eminence."[5] In the Apocalypse too: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto Him that is thirsting from the fountain of the water of life freely."[6] That He also is both the wisdom and the power of God, Paul proves in his first Epistle to the Corinthians. "Because the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews indeed a stumbling-block, and to the Gentiles foolishness; but to them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."[7]
  
  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/...P7907_2659601\

[Non-Trinitarian]

Who is the Alpha and the Omega?


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.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Thanks NonTrin, I know I have run you all over creation on where to post this.... I will be getting to a response, but it will be a little bit. I have numerous other obligations at the moment, but I will respond.

[Non-Trinitarian]

Today @ 01:20 PM post located here
Dee Dee Warren:

Thanks NonTrin, I know I have run you all over creation on where to post this.... I will be getting to a response, but it will be a little bit. I have numerous other obligations at the moment, but I will respond.

That's okay Dee Dee. We're all busy. Also, I have an addendum to AV's request for more information on the relationship of the title "First and last" and the resurrection. I will post it here.

AV,
You are correct. I should have made the connection between Jesus saying he is the F&L and immediately following that with his death and resurrection. My bad. Note the verse again.

“And he laid his right hand upon me and said: “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, and I have the keys of death and of Ha´des.”-Rev
1:17

Again, we believe the ‘First and Last’ is intimately tied into Jesus’ death and resurrection. The “First” denotes that he is the first of many to be raised to immortal life in heaven. As Jesus is described as just 12 verses earlier.

“and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “The firstborn from the dead,”” –Rev 1:5

We note also

“and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things”-Col 1:18

Thus, since Jesus follows his claim of being the F&L, BOTH times, with his death and resurrection, it appears the “First” is referring to his being the firstborn from the dead. In fact, as a side note though I won’t make too big
of an issue out of it, the Codex Alexandrinus, of the 5th century, has “Firstborn” rather than “First”. Now Jesus isn’t just the First raised to immortality, he is the first one raised to immortality BY Jehovah. And he will be the “Last” raised to life by Jehovah too. The reason he will be the last one raised to life by God is because God has given Jesus the privilege of raising everyone else. We note this at

“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone that beholds the Son and exercises faith in him should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him at the last day.”-John 6:40

And of course there are other verses that also show Jesus will be raising us from the dead. Jesus has thus been given the grand blessing of being personally responsible for raising all faithful Christians to life.

Now in claiming his title of “First and Last”, Jesus wasn’t just saying ‘I am the last person to be raised to immortal life by God’. While that is part of the meaning, there is a more deeper meaning and purpose behind his saying
that. The point Jesus is making by saying he is the last to be raised by God is that now JESUS will be the one raising all others. In other words, the title “Last” is meant to help all to understand that Jesus has now been rewarded for his faith in God by finally receiving the privilege of raising all others. Jesus is declaring his victory and reward by letting all know that he is the LAST. In fact, Jesus notes that he was the last to be raised by God by what he says immediately following his mention of the death and resurrection. Note the verse again.

“And he laid his right hand upon me and said: “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, and I have the keys of death and of Ha´des.”

This is very telling to Jesus’ meaning behind the title of “First and Last.” No one else will be raised to immortal life by God. Jesus was the First and he’ll be the Last. Why? Because as Jesus says, “I have the keys of death and Hades.”

In short, Jesus was the “First” born of the dead raised to immortal life by God. Because of Jesus’ victory over Satan and his Father’s reward, Jesus is also the “last” to be raised by God as Jehovah has rewarded Jesus with the privilege of raising all others. The “First and the Last” is not a title to tell us Jesus is God, it’s a victory slogan that highlights Jesus’ accomplishments and NEW responsibility, now that he has the keys to death and hades.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I completely forgot about this thread.... "hits subscribe" to keep it on my to do list.

[AVmetro]

Hi, NonTrin,

I suppose I didn't catch your response. I only caught it now upon getting a notification that Dee Dee replied to this thread . As of now I'm stuck typing on the floor (I scrapped the old "desk" it was sitting on and waiting for a new one {we just moved into a new home}). I'll reply here in a day or two. Take care.

-AV

[Dee Dee Warren]

Okay finally I can address NonTrin's post, and I thank him for his patience in this.

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).

Yes that is the ultimate goal in the discussion, though we get there by a well built road.

Who is speaking?

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.

No, the issue is who is being spoken of which can be determined irregardless of who is doing the speaking. My position does not require that Christ be dong the speaking, though I believe it is abundantly apparent He is. More on that in a bit.

For instance, in vs 6 the angel is speaking. In verse 7 the angel is speaking for Jesus.

Says who? There simply could have been a change in speaker as happens continously in Revelation. It is certainly possible, but irrelevant. What is relevant is that Jesus is who is being spoken of in verse 7. And what is He being spoken of? As the one coming. The Father is never spoken as the one coming in Revelation.

Here are the reference to a "coming" in Revelation: 1:7; 3:11; 9:12 (two more woes are coming); 10:1 (another mighty angel coming down from heaven); 11:14 (third woe is coming); 13:11 (another beast coming up out of the earth); 16:13 (like frogs coming out of the mouth); 16:15; 18:1 (another angel coming down); 20:1 (an angel coming down); 21:1 (New Jerusalem coming down); 22:7, 22:12; 22:20.

In addition there are multiple references to "come." Here are all the ones that refer definitely to a "coming" of Christ: 2:5;2:16; 2:25; 3:3; 3:20; 2:20.

The only references that even remotely can be said to describe the Father as coming are a repitition of this descriptive: "Who is, and was, and is to come." (1:4; 1:8; 4:8; 11:17). This is patently NOT a reference to the same thing but in the context are a praise to the all-encompasing Omni-ness of God. He fills eternity. It is equivalent to the First and Last, the Alpha and Omega, the Begnning and the End. He is the past, He is the future, and He is all the comes in between. Thus there is not ONE reference in Revelation to God "coming" in the clouds in this sense. It is ALL about Christ. If we search the NT there is only one possible reference at all the Father coming, and it is in a parable. Any OT references such as Isaiah 40:10 is a mammoth exercise in question begging in this context, since that is easily understood as a reference to the deity of Christ. In the book in question, who is coming? Christ. Thus when a person is identified as the one who is coming in the book, it is Christ and the other descriptives in that same breath belong to Him.

Furthermore, it becomes even more patent once when takes the correct eschatological view. It is undisputed that in the OT another could come in someone's place as their representative and at times the text makes it appaear as if the absent person being represented is actually the one speaking. The centurion, his servant, and Christ is a good example (compare Luke 7 and Matthew 8). However, why did the servant speak for the Centurion? Because the Centurion was not actually present at this meeting.... the servant came in his place physically. There was a need for substitute representation. He was the physical substitute in the situation. However, in Revelation this need disappears. It is not speaking of Christ physically coming to the earth. He remains in Heaven. There is then no need for a substitute representative. The Father can represent Himself quite ably from heaven. Furthermore, the servant who came in the Centurion's place could speak as if he were the Centurion but he could only act as if he were in what was within his power - not merely his delegated authority. The Centurion was a trained warrior, the servant may not be. It would not matter if he was given the authority to fight on behalf of the Centurion if he lacked the actual ability to do so. The giving of the power of authority as an agent does not give him skills and abilities that the principal alone possesses. This is an analogy in that Christ not only speaks as God (which unitarians explain away as an agency relationship), He ACTS with the abilities of God. These are nondelegable abilities to a mere man. They require infinite knowledge and ability, and only God can possess that. Jesus is portrayed as the judge of all who knows all. This is not something that a man, no matter how highly exalted may do. A man cannot judge with the infinite wisdom, understanding, and knowledge that God possesses. This is insurmountable.

In verse 8 John is speaking.

No, there is no quote from anyone, the book resumes its narrative. This is not an accurate representation. It is also rendered irrelevant by the above, but I could not let that go by.

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.

Bad argument in that no one is "speaking" in verse 8. Even though this is irrelevant as what is important is "who" is being spoken of, I have to point out this inaccuracy.

In verse 17 we see the spirit and the bride speaking.

Again bad argument. The bride is not literally speaking. The bride is the Churchof all time. Is NonTrin really making the argument that the church of all time is literally speaking in that verse? What is obvious is that Jesus has continued speaking and is figuratively relating what the Spirit and the bride are "saying." On a tangent, does NonTrin really believe that an impersonal force there (the spirit) is literally speaking? Has gravity spoken lately?

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?’

Who is speakingis not the question. It is irrelevant to the main point (see extensive argument above). I could grant for the sake of argument that the angel isspeaking. There is absolutely NO evidence in this exchange that God the Father has started speaking personally. The Father speaks only potentially once during the entire book (21:6-7), though I would say that is the Trinity as a whole. Nevertheless.... there is zero evidence that the Father is speaking in our verse in question. It is either the angel or Christ. And if it is the angel, he is referring unequivocably to Christ as Christ has unequivocably and repitiviely described as the coming one in Revelation with it even being emphasized in the closing verses. There is no way that NonTrin is comfortable with his explaining away. I understand that he must do it, but the clear testimony to the true glory of Christ is undeniable here in the last chapter.

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.

Acting as if I "resorted" to this argument is quite shaky. I did not. I acknowledged that my point holds true no matter who is speaking. I do believe it is Christ, but it does not matter.

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.

I have dealt with this above. This is bald hand-waving. Nowhere in Revelation is the Father spoken of as coming in this context. And the closing verses of Revelation are a mouth-shutter:

Revelation 22:20

He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming quickly." EVEN SO COME LORD JESUS.

It if were a :snake: it woulda bit you. Jesus is the one coming in Revelation. Thus......

Revelation 22:12-13

And behold I am coming quickly and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.

For all my flamboyancy, I am grieving in my heart that this clear testimony is being trod underfoot to rob Christ. It could not be any more clear. As Solly said, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Revelation 1:7

Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him.

When was God pierced? It is question begging that God is coming because Jesus represents Him. That is nowhere a theme in Revelation. Christ is coming. Christ is the Alpha and Omega.


I will respond to the second prong of NonTrin's response, but he fleshed it out more in his response to AV so I will respond to that post while also quoting portions of the one I just responded to. Maybe I will be able to do that in the next few days.

[AVmetro]

....and then I forgot about it. :) What does that say for my memory? Sorry _again_ for the wait.

Hello, Non-Trin,

You stated:

...8<...

"And he laid his right hand upon me and said: "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, and I have the keys of death and of Ha´des."-Rev 1:17

Again, we believe the ‘First and Last’ is intimately tied into Jesus’ death and resurrection. The "First" denotes that he is the first of many to be raised to immortal life in heaven. As Jesus is described as just 12 verses earlier.

The assertion you still need to prove is that the title "First and Last" is 'intimately tied into' Jesus' death and resurrection. The two appearing in the same verse does not necessarily mean that the one interprets the other.

Non-Trin stated:

"and from Jesus Christ, "the Faithful Witness," "The firstborn from the dead,"" -Rev 1:5

We note also

"and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things"-Col 1:18

Thus, since Jesus follows his claim of being the F&L, BOTH times, with his death and resurrection, it appears the "First" is referring to his being the firstborn from the dead.

This still remains a claim from eisegesis as I'm failing to see the necessesity of it. I think to be consistent, either 'first' and 'last' must both refer to the concept of resurrection (in a consistent manner), or to a single concept. I agree that He is the first to be resurrected to _immortality_ (in the case of anyone). However, He is certainly not the "last" to be so.

Christ was not:

a.) the first to die

b.) the last to die

c.) the last to be resurrected to immortality

So given the concepts of "death", "life", or more generally, "resurrection" we do not have a _consistent_ application.

As we see below, to give an explanation you must add another qualifier. Unlike some in the past, however, you gave a _reason_ for this qualifier (which I commend).

Non-Trin stated:

In fact, as a side note though I won’t make too big of an issue out of it, the Codex Alexandrinus, of the 5th century, has "Firstborn" rather than "First".

What verse are you referring to? I checked Metzger's commentary and couldn't find

any such reference (I don't doubt what you say, I just need a ref.)

Non-Trin stated:

Now Jesus isn’t just the First raised to immortality, he is the first one raised to immortality BY Jehovah.

I agree. By whom else are the dead raised? From past experience I understand what you're getting at. See below.

Non-Trin stated:

And he will be the "Last" raised to life by Jehovah too. The reason he will be the last one raised to life by God is because God has given Jesus the privilege of raising everyone else. We note this at

"For this is the will of my Father, that everyone that beholds the Son and exercises faith in him should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him at the last day."-John 6:40

And of course there are other verses that also show Jesus will be raising us from the dead. Jesus has thus been given the grand blessing of being personally responsible for raising all faithful Christians to life.

In other words, Jesus is the "first" and the "last" to be raised _solely_ by God whereas all other resurrections to immortality are performed _by means of_ Jesus. I have two points to make concerning this:

1.] This isn't a significant qualifier, IMHO. In your view, it may be _related_ to Christ being "dead and now alive" but I fail to see how this would be a _significant_ statment.

2.] It is not true that Christ was raised by sole means of the Father. For example, see John 2:19*; 10:18. Note the parallel between John 2:19 ("raise it up") and John 6:39 ("raise it up"). This would mean that Christ is _not_ the "first" raised by direct means of the Father nor the "last" to be such. (*Speaking of John 2:19, which argument do you use to counter the Trin understanding? Temple = church or "woman healed by faith"? Thanks.)

Non-Trin stated:

Now in claiming his title of "First and Last", Jesus wasn’t just saying ‘I am the last person to be raised to immortal life by God’. While that is part of the meaning, there is a more deeper meaning and purpose behind his saying that. The point Jesus is making by saying he is the last to be raised by God is that now JESUS will be the one raising all others. In other words, the title "Last" is meant to help all to understand that Jesus has now been rewarded for his faith in God by finally receiving the privilege of raising all others. Jesus is declaring his victory and reward by letting all know that he is the LAST. In fact, Jesus notes that he was the last to be raised by God by what he says immediately following his mention of the death and resurrection. Note the verse again.

"And he laid his right hand upon me and said: "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, and I have the keys of death and of Ha´des."

This is very telling to Jesus’ meaning behind the title of "First and Last." No one else will be raised to immortal life by God. Jesus was the First and he’ll be the Last. Why? Because as Jesus says, "I have the keys of death and Hades."

Wouldn't this mean then that a creation of God can act _independantly_ of God the Father? That he/she would have within themselves an _inate_ power to give eternal life? Secondly, contrary to what you have proposed above, read Romans 8:11 (etc) where it is stated that the _Father_ will raise him/her "..if the Spirit of Christ dwells in you."

Non-Trin stated:

In short, Jesus was the "First" born of the dead raised to immortal life by God. Because of Jesus’ victory over Satan and his Father’s reward, Jesus is also the "last" to be raised by God as Jehovah has rewarded Jesus with the privilege of raising all others. The "First and the Last" is not a title to tell us Jesus is God, it’s a victory slogan that highlights Jesus’ accomplishments and NEW responsibility, now that he has the keys to death and hades.

If I haven't stated my view previously, I see this passage as a statement of deity and a subsequent proclamation over death w/o seeing the one interpreting the other. I see no significance or consistency in any other anti-Trinitarian interpretation I've seen thus far. Especially given that the exact same phrase is used in ref. to, granted for now, the Father in Rev 22:13

1:17 - ho prwtos kai ho eschatos

22:13 -ho prwtos kai ho eschatos

IMO, It's an obvious parallel to "Alpha and Omega" and "Beginning and End."

God bless--AV

[Dee Dee Warren]

Okay continuing on with the second prong of NonTrin's response

Who's On First?

We recognize that Jesus applied the title F&L to himself twice and that Jehovah used the same title for himself.

Good start, and in the same book, and made the term a supreme expression of protological and eschatological divinity. That point is being sorely missed. Revelation makes first and last, alpha and omega, and beginning and end synonomous. Once this is not brushed aside, no other points can be made.

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.

I would never argue that same titles automatically equal the same person. I however gave a very extensive argument for the "first and last" phraseology which was not dealt with.

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.

Actually Metro did a great job of showing that it is only a reading into the text that modifies First and Last with anything said after that point, by this simple statement:

The two appearing in the same verse does not necessarily mean that the one interprets the other.

..... and I showed above that it is in fact Christ speaking or being refered to at 22:13, so NonTrin is basically making a circular argument - Jesus always modifies his meaning of the expression of pure deity and since it is not modified at 22:13 this is further proof it is not Christ speaking. It is just as easily understand to refer to the Incarnation. He is claiming not ONLY His deity but His humanity, thus solidifying His right and place as the perfect redeemer.

JW’s feel it is significant that in both instances where Jesus’ uses the title F&L, he immediately mentions his death and resurrection.

It is significant to show how He is the perfect representative of both God and man.

Thus, while Jesus uses the same title as God, it is with a qualification of his death and resurrection.

Don't you then see the connection? I gave extensive argumentation as to why this phrase in this context cannot be used of a mere creature which was not dealt with even in passing. The "qualification" here is a revelation of Who Christ is in absolute glory.

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.

This again is circular and does not deal with the history of the phrase and the "coming" issues I presented which show who in fact is referred to in 22:13.

Furthermore, while Jesus does use the title F&L, he does not use the title A&O in an undisputed verse.

It is not disputed for any textual basis whatsoever. If the title A&O did not appear there, unitarians would not be arguing whatsover about who was being referred to.... the objection is driven sheerly by doctrinal bias.

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.....

No. Something has been misunderstood or worded the above badly. The "first and last" there could be absent, and it would still be obviously Christ speaking. However, it is significant that at the climax of the book He undeniably appropriates three of the titles of Deity in the sequential symbolism to Himself.

.. 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.

This is a misrepresenation of the argument. Strawmen are easy to knock down.

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.

First of all I do not base my thrust on 1:8 at all. Second, this again is circular and assuming nonTrinitarianism to prove nonTrinitarianism. But I have no issue if 1:8 is Christ or is the Father. It is not necessary for my points. NonTrin goes on to argue that Jesus is not speaking in 21:6. I do not make this argument so am not going to respond to that portion. I will note however that it is my position that it is the Trinity speaking as a whole there, but it is not necessary for this article.

“And he laid his right hand upon me and said: “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, and I have the keys of death and of Ha´des.”-Rev
1:17

Again, we believe the ‘First and Last’ is intimately tied into Jesus’ death and resurrection. The “First” denotes that he is the first of many to be raised to immortal life in heaven. As Jesus is described as just 12 verses earlier.

“and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “The firstborn from the dead,”” –Rev 1:5

We note also

“and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things”-Col 1:18

Sidenote... being "first in all things" is the perogative of God alone who gives His glory to none (Isaiah 48:11). First in all things INCLUDES WORSHIP.... one cannot be choosy here.

Thus, since Jesus follows his claim of being the F&L, BOTH times, with his death and resurrection, it appears the “First” is referring to his being the firstborn from the dead.

This statement cannot be made without dealing with the contextual and historical issues I presented with First and Last in my original article. The phrase is unmodifiable. It would be akin to me saying "I am ALMIGHTY GOD! I am the owner of TheologyWeb." (no purposeful blasphemy is intended - a point is being proven that I would be making an extraordinary claim) The phrase Almighty God just cannot be lessened to mean something else. It is not diminished by my qualifier of owning TheologyWeb. It would simply mean that I delusionally thought I was Almighty God and ALSO owned TheologyWeb (which He does, but you get my point). Jesus made a supreme claim. All He can do is add to it with the qualifiers, historically and contextually IT CANNOT BE DIMINISHED..

NonTrin goes on to prove that Christ is the one who will raise the dead. I do not disagree. However, there are major flaws here. NonTrin makes the claim that Jesus was the first and last (that renders inane the utter majesty of that title) to be raised from the dead by the Father. However:

Christ also raised Himself from the dead (John 2:19)

The Father will also raise the rest of the dead at the end of mortal history (Romans 8:11; 1 Corinthians 6:14; 2 Corinthians 4:14)

Romans 8:11

But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

1 Corinthians 6:14

And God both raised up the Lord and will also raise us up by His power.

2 Corinthians 4:14

...knowing that He who raised up the Lord Jesus will also raise us up with Jesus, and will present us with you.

Thus, our resurections are just like Christ's (that is the point ultimately of 1 Cor 15 anyways) and BOTH participate (as does the Spirit). Furthermore the granting and the power to give life is that of God alone. Granting that to Christ is a concession to His deity. Do you think any creature can handle ALL authority? (Matthew 28:18)?

The points above render incorrect NonTrin's explanation of the verses. Jesus is NOT the last to be raised by God.