For as long as I can remember the official yet quite inexplicable understanding of Revelation 22:12-15 was that Jehovah spoke the words: “‘Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to render to each one as his work is. 13 I am the Al′pha and the O‧me′ga, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. 14 Happy are those who wash their robes, that the authority [to go] to the trees of life may be theirs and that they may gain entrance into the city by its gates. 15 Outside are the dogs and those who practice spiritism and the fornicators and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone liking and carrying on a lie.’
Then, for reason unknown, verse 16 switches narrative back to Jesus as it says, “‘I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to you people of these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star.’â€
Reasoning from the Scriptures (p. 413) says the following with respect to verses 12-16:
At Revelation 22:12, TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 13 is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in Greek, and other translations do not include it. (5) At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be “the first and the last,†which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18. Similarly, the expression “apostle†is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1) So the evidence points to the conclusion that the title “Alpha and Omega†applies to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son.
I personally don't agree with the reasoning since there is nothing in context to prove their "conclusion" that the title “Alpha and Omega†can only apply "to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son."
Any thoughts on this?
sw
Hi SW,
I agree with you.
Jesus, I believe, is also the Alpha and Omega.
He indwells his Father as his Father indwells him
He was begotten before time and was not part of the creation.
blessings
Derek
It seems a majority of commentaries and footnotes favor Jesus being the speaker. By God's appointment he functions as God, especially at this moment in the messianic age when eternal life is being granted to the Believers.
John is fairly consistent in his use of titles, like Paul. To them The Father is GOD and everyone including the Son acknowledge this.
From that position grants and bestowments are made. The Prince and future King will be given full reign of the Kingdom of God by The Father, he will have all the powers of The Father. He speaks in the voice of The Father, which was familiar to a Jewish audience who knew about the Angel of the Lord speaking in a similar voice.
designs
I have noticed a tendency of those who do not feel it is Jesus who is being referred too, tend to discount the context of who is being spoken of in the other surrounding verses. For example:
Rev 22:7 Behold, I come quickly. Blessed is he who keeps the Words of the prophecy of this Book.
Rev 22:20 He who testifies these things says, Yes, I am coming quickly, Amen. Yes, come, Lord Jesus.
In Verse seven it speaks of the one who comes quickly. In the context of Revelation we can see this one is Jesus. He is referred to as coming quickly and even says he is when he addresses the conregations in chapers 2 and 3.
Rev 3:11 Behold, I come quickly. Hold fast to that which you have, so that no one may take your crown.
I guess my point may be that if we are to attribute the other surrounding verses in Revelation chapter 22 to be Jesus, it would be inconsistant to say.. well all but where he is spoken of as being the alpha and the omega.
In Chapter One I can't help but notice the context,
Rev 1:5 even from Jesus Christ the faithful Witness, the First-born from the dead and the Ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,
Rev 1:6 and made us kings and priests to God and His Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Rev 1:7 Behold, He comes with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, and those who pierced Him will see Him, and all the kindreds of the earth will wail because of Him. Even so, Amen.
Rev 1:8 I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, says the Lord, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.
Now in comparrison to Jesus words:
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I AM!
Hebrews is interesting here too-
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today and forever.
In Rev 11 we see by what means God takes power and reigns. It is through the his word whom he sent forth Jesus.
Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded. And there were great voices in Heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ. And He will reign forever and ever.
Rev 11:16 And the twenty-four elders sitting before God on their thrones, fell on their faces and worshiped God,
Rev 11:17 saying, We thank You, O Lord God Almighty, who are, and who was, and who is coming, because You took Your great power and reigned
Jesus tells John this in verse 17 of Chapter 1.
Rev 1:17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying to me, Do not fear, I am the First and the Last, .
To me it seems that there is not a contradition to say that Our God is the Alpha and the Omega, and to also attribute that title to Jesus. For Father uses Jesus as the fufillment of those words.
For Jesus Fufills the words In Rev. 21
Rev 21:6 And He said to me, It is done. I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who thirsts I will give of the fountain of the Water of Life freely.
Rev 21:7 He who overcomes will inherit all things, and I will be his God, and he will be My son.
Our Kingdom.
Mar 11:9 And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord::10 Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest.:11 And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple.
Just a few thoughts
:heartbeat:
Lynn
I have noticed a tendency of those who do not feel it is Jesus who is being referred too, tend to discount the context of who is being spoken of in the other surrounding verses. For example:
Rev 22:7 Behold, I come quickly. Blessed is he who keeps the Words of the prophecy of this Book.
Rev 22:20 He who testifies these things says, Yes, I am coming quickly, Amen. Yes, come, Lord Jesus.
In Verse seven it speaks of the one who comes quickly. In the context of Revelation we can see this one is Jesus. He is referred to as coming quickly and even says he is when he addresses the conregations in chapers 2 and 3.
Rev 3:11 Behold, I come quickly. Hold fast to that which you have, so that no one may take your crown.
I guess my point may be that if we are to attribute the other surrounding verses in Revelation chapter 22 to be Jesus, it would be inconsistant to say.. well all but where he is spoken of as being the alpha and the omega.
In Chapter One I can't help but notice the context,
Rev 1:5 even from Jesus Christ the faithful Witness, the First-born from the dead and the Ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,
Rev 1:6 and made us kings and priests to God and His Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Rev 1:7 Behold, He comes with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, and those who pierced Him will see Him, and all the kindreds of the earth will wail because of Him. Even so, Amen.
Rev 1:8 I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, says the Lord, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.
Hi Lynn, and thanks for your input.
The problem is that the WT, in trying to distance itself from trinitarian interpretation, really shoots itself in the foot by being too fast and loose with its own reasoning. In my business, if you call your competitor a liar too many times, people begin to disbelieve simply because of negative advertising, or in the words of Queen Gertrude to Hamlet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks," regardless of where the truth lies.
In this I see the WT overcompensating as it always does, but now attempting to restrict Jesus when it is his time to shine because his Father gave the Revelation to him (Rev 1:1) along with all titles which elevate him to his Father's throne. Why keep fiddling with the text when John already tells us (in 1 John 5:20) "he (ie Jesus) has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one?"
Even in this I think heaven itself knows the difference between the the Father and Son for it says in Revelation 11:15, “The kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever.â€
So while I disagree with trinitarians who try to meld the two or say Jesus is the Jehovah of the NT, I also disagree with how the WT belittles the Son by attempting to take away titles his Father gave him, classic being John 1:1 when they chose to translate the Word into an absurd small "g" god, giving trinitarians yet another "two god" nonsenical argument.
I'm all for fine-tuning and tweeking texts but not when whole doctrines start taking wild swings at them.
Love,
sw
By God's appointment he functions as God, especially at this moment in the messianic age when eternal life is being granted to the Believers.
Absolutely designs. So simple and so true.
:heartbeat:sw
So while I disagree with trinitarians who try to meld the two or say Jesus is the Jehovah of the NT, I also disagree with how the WT belittles the Son by attempting to take away titles his Father gave him, classic being John 1:1 when they chose to translate the Word into an absurd small "g" god, giving trinitarians yet another "two god" nonsenical argument.
So SW,
How do you explain to Trins about John 1:1?
thank you:)
So while I disagree with trinitarians who try to meld the two or say Jesus is the Jehovah of the NT, I also disagree with how the WT belittles the Son by attempting to take away titles his Father gave him, classic being John 1:1 when they chose to translate the Word into an absurd small "g" god, giving trinitarians yet another "two god" nonsenical argument.
So SW,
How do you explain to Trins about John 1:1?
thank you:)
Hi Hitomi,
Not so very long ago I decided to discontinue entering into debates on semantics—especially when arguments are driven emotionally and without reason.
To me, John 1:1 is a communication from John under inspiration over the pre-existent nature of Jehovah’s Son before he was sent to earth. Unfortunately, in an effort to distance itself from Trinitarian reasoning, the WT got a little too carried away with Benjamin Wilson’s reasoning in the Emphatic Diaglott. They forgot that they once used the American Standard Version which said: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.â€
Had I read any other Bible or come to know the WT stand on the trinity prior to the writing of the NWT, I would still not think that John 1:1 is saying that the Word was actually God in disguise or God in the equal or literal sense of the word.
Case in point? Exodus 7:1 also says: “And Jehovah said unto Moses, ‘See, I have made thee as God [lit. 'I give you Elohim'] to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.’†Are we to suddenly conclude that Moses literally became God because God made it so?
So I reason it this way. If Jehovah was able to make Moses 'God to Pharaoh' in that Moses was given all of Jehovah’s authority to act as God when speaking against Pharaoh, then why is it so difficult to reason that Jehovah also gave Jesus authority over the whole world—complete with the title of God since he acted as such? Do the scriptures say anywhere else that Jesus was actually Jehovah in another form? or disguise? Even as it is, how could the Word be God and be with God, all at the same time and in the same sentence if he really was God?
I truly believe that God gave us a mind with which to reason. But how are we to reason if we are told to believe a doctrine before entering into its reason? But maybe that’s just my simple, puny brain trying to reason that no greater mystery was being implied than that which was stated—which to me is no mystery.
Love,
sw
So while I disagree with trinitarians who try to meld the two or say Jesus is the Jehovah of the NT, I also disagree with how the WT belittles the Son by attempting to take away titles his Father gave him, classic being John 1:1 when they chose to translate the Word into an absurd small "g" god, giving trinitarians yet another "two god" nonsenical argument.
So SW,
How do you explain to Trins about John 1:1?
thank you:)
Hi Hitomi,
Not so very long ago I decided to discontinue entering into debates on semantics—especially when arguments are driven emotionally and without reason.
To me, John 1:1 is a communication from John under inspiration over the pre-existent nature of Jehovah’s Son before he was sent to earth. Unfortunately, in an effort to distance itself from Trinitarian reasoning, the WT got a little too carried away with Benjamin Wilson’s reasoning in the Emphatic Diaglott. They forgot that they once used the American Standard Version which said: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.â€
Had I read any other Bible or come to know the WT stand on the trinity prior to the writing of the NWT, I would still not think that John 1:1 is saying that the Word was actually God in disguise or God in the equal or literal sense of the word.
Case in point? Exodus 7:1 also says: “And Jehovah said unto Moses, ‘See, I have made thee as God [lit. 'I give you Elohim'] to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.’†Are we to suddenly conclude that Moses literally became God because God made it so?
So I reason it this way. If Jehovah was able to make Moses 'God to Pharaoh' in that Moses was given all of Jehovah’s authority to act as God when speaking against Pharaoh, then why is it so difficult to reason that Jehovah also gave Jesus authority over the whole world—complete with the title of God since he acted as such? Do the scriptures say anywhere else that Jesus was actually Jehovah in another form? or disguise? Even as it is, how could the Word be God and be with God, all at the same time and in the same sentence if he really was God?
I truly believe that God gave us a mind with which to reason. But how are we to reason if we are told to believe a doctrine before entering into its reason? But maybe that’s just my simple, puny brain trying to reason that no greater mystery was being implied than that which was stated—which to me is no mystery.
Love,
sw
That's very reasonable and make sense.
thank you, SW:)
I agree the WT loves to throw Jehovah into every meaning, as a backlash to Christendom that applies everything to Jesus, but I would like to add some on John 1:1:
At John 1:1 the King James Version reads:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god."
This is not a terrible translation, but the concept may be a bit difficult to grasp for us since most of us were raised in a monotheistic society, that means that for us the word god refers to just one individual, Almighty God YHWH.
However, remember that the Greeks (whose language we are translating) were a polytheistic society (they worshiped many gods), and to them the word theos (god) referred to a large group of individuals who were more powerful than men. In addition this word theos was used not only for their official Gods, but also for men of power and influence, or to show relative position as in the case of its use by slaves to refer to their masters. So in Greek, theos just means powerful one, not Creator or Almighty.
In line with this Jesus is called a god (theos) and undoubtedly it is this usage that eventually led to the formation of the trinity doctrine. The bible writers did not intend this, they just used the word according to the standard and accepted understanding of the day, so that even Paul and Barnabas are described with the word theos.
To differentiate YHWH from just any person or spirit of power, the bible writers consistently refer to YHWH with the definite article as the God (ton theos).
At John 1:1 we can see this construction if we look at the Greek, first we have The Word (ton logos) then we have The God (ton theos), next The Word again (ton logos) but the final reference to god (theos) is without the definite article, indicating John was not trying to describe YHWH again, but was using a different phrase and attempting to communicate that Jesus was a godlike, powerful, spirit being.
Because this second use of the word god (theos) is not used with the definite article it must be indefinite. The Koine or common Greek of the day did not have an indefinite article like English ("a" or "an"), so when translating into English the indefinite article must be inserted where required by the context. Pick up any Bible translation you'll find the words "a" or "an" throughout the text, because they have been inserted according to the context by the translator. However at John 1:1 many translators refuse to do so, even though the context requires it for accurate understanding.
Consider : "The Word was with God." and someone who is "with" another person cannot be the same as that other person.
Jehovah's Witnesses are not alone in this understanding. Notice how some have translated John 1:1
ï€ The Bible-An American Translation, "and the Word was divine."
ï€ 2001 Translation "and the Expression was powerful."
ï€ The Emphatic Diaglott, "and a god was the word."
ï€ New World Translation "and the Word was a god."
With the indefinite article a, the reading at least makes some sense. The only conceivable reason the translator can have for leaving out the indefinite article a, or describing the actual meaning of the word is they are attempting to change God's word to artificially create an English trinity proof text.
Although the NWT rendering of a god is probably the most accurate in keeping with its supposedly literal translation goals, it is still lacking because they have not translated (ton theos) literally, but have instead followed the pattern of English bibles and removed the definite article so the two Greek words for the God (ton theos) becomes just one word, God.
Most bibles will at least differentiate the two uses of the word theos by capitalization, that is YHWH is God, while everybody else is god or a god. This is better than nothing, since it at least shows some difference. If you wish to use one of these translations every time you read the word god, you need to remember it is not talking about the person YHWH, but is describing a quality.
If we do not remember to do this everytime we can easily get confused; for instance since there is no god but YHWH, how can Jesus be a god?
Unless we are dealing with a specific foreign or false god, the best solution that I can see is to stop pandering to the trinity folks, and remove this artificially introduced confusion.
Either translate every occurrence of theos with a definite article as it is in the Greek, that is The God, to denote it is referring to YHWH, or since we are monotheists and understand that there is only one true god, to instead stop using the lowercase word god to describe a quality and instead describe the concept, behind the word according to its context.
Hi Seamus! :hibye: I wish to commend you, brother, on what I consider to be, overall, an outstanding exposition on John 1:1. Personally, I have always favored the rendering in The Bible--An American Translation:
"And the Word was divine."
To me, this captures the essence of the relationship between the Father and the Son. Jesus (the Lo'gos) is and always will remain unique, in that he alone is "out of" God; of the very essence and nature as Almighty God, YHWH, Himself.
I do have one small question, though, in light of this statement of yours:
since there is no god but YHWH, how can Jesus be a god?
How might you explain the words of Thomas to Jesus, found at John 20:28?
Jesus Appears to Thomas
24 Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Is it not true that we need to let the Scriptures speak for themselves, without any mitigation, dilution, or rationalizations?
your friend and brother, ... isomam
Hello Isomam, I also like the translation "the word was divine" and tend to agree with your explanation of why, but that is not a totally accurate translation either. I feel a perfect translation is impossible with the bible text alone, but can only be accomplished with text and extensive footnotes.
Excellent Question! Thank you.
First off I should clarify the one statement you called to my attention, namely
since there is no god but YHWH, how can Jesus be a god?
A perfect thesis on the subject is still under construction, but what I was trying to point out is one of the many problems that arise from our limited monotheistic view of the word theos, and how it is that deliberately poor translations confuse matters and serve as the primary basis for the trinity doctrine in English bibles.
What I should have said is since YHWH is described as the only true god, how can Jesus be a god? If he himself is not part of an almighty trinity, does this mean he is a false god?
As to the statement of Thomas at John 20:28 - "My Lord and
my God.", the construction in Greek is different from either usage of theos at John 1:1. While both the words lord (kurios) and god (theos) are preceded by the definite article, they are then followed by a personal adjective.
Thus the scripture reads literally "the lord of me and the god of me." This is an entirely different construction and thought than either usage of theos, recorded for us at John 1:1. With this in mind, it would be reasonable that there may need to be an entirely different meaning applied to the word theos .
Since the word theos can have varied meaning and usage the easiest thing in this case is to ignore the linguistic technicalities and instead simply consider the context. Does it seem likely that in this situation, at this specific time, Thomas purposely chose to speak using the definite article to show that the resurrected Jesus was God? Hardly. Thomas was undoubtedly embarrassed by his previous words of incredulity and humbled, and we should interpret his words in that light.
To recap, the background and usage of theos :
Since the Greeks (whose language we are translating) were a polytheistic society (they worshiped many gods), to them the word theos (god) referred to (1) a large group of individuals who were more powerful than men. In addition this word theos was used not only for their official Gods, but also for (2) men of power and influence, or (3) to show relative position as in the case of its use by slaves to refer to their masters. So in Greek, theos just means powerful one, not Creator or Almighty.
Obviously meaning number three applies perfectly here, Thomas is recognizing his position under Jesus and humbly giving him all due honor, expressing his belief and offering his loyal service to his master, using both the normal title for a master (kurios) and the honorific title (theos).
Once again the concept behind the Greek word theos as it is used here does not really translate perfectly into English, but I would translate it as "my lord and my master", or perhaps more accurately "my master and my owner"
As regards the trinity doctrine, many of the so called proof texts, and the difficult passages for the non-trinitarians only exist in our English bibles, thus showing they are doctrinally motivated alterations to God's word that have become endemic in our western cultural history, especially considering our intensely monotheistic background. Because of this we need to use caution in relying upon English bibles.
As I mentioned at he outset this is a work in progress, however I am not attempting to dilute or rationalize away what I don't like, quite the opposite, I regularly find things that make me reexamine my faith, however when faced with a confusing concept and apparent disagreement in the the scriptures I think it first and foremost critical to make sure one is using an accurate translation of the inspired scriptures, so that one can achieve an accurate understanding.
Warm Love,
Seamus
Thanks, Seamus, for taking the necessary time to elaborate. :thumbup:
(BTW, I am not a "trinitarian," either. But neither do I exclude those who are from being considered my brothers and sisters in the Christian faith.)
I appreciate that you, -- like myself, -- are merely seeking "accurate words of truth," in properly understanding the relationship between the Father and the Son. :read:
Warm Christian Love to you, too, Seamus.
isomam
Hi Seamus and Isomam,
I found your discussion interesting.
I am not a scholar but have read a little on this and know these issues are not as clear cut as those on both sides of the trinitarian 'watershed' seem to indicate.:)
You said Seamus:
Hello Isomam, I also like the translation "the word was divine" and tend to agree with your explanation of why, but that is not a totally accurate translation either.
I note you say, "divine", is not totally accurate, Seamus!
Perhaps, John would have used a perfectly available Greek word at the time for divine...theios....if had intended that meaning?
It would be interesting to know, Seamus, did fewer Greeks become trinitarians because of their mother tongue?
In John 1:49 there is no definite article in association with ....King (of Israel).... yet the predicate noun "King" is undoubtedly specific.
It seems to me that the article was left out by John in verse 1 to speak to a truth which Hebrews 1 declares, that the Son is "the beaming forth" or the effulgence or glory (apaugasma) of the Father.
If John had actually included the article with reference to the Logos being God, it would have stated something quite untrue to N.T Christianity...that the logos was the Father...a quite ridiculous concept, which in my day was the gross distortion of the Trinity doctrine used by JW's.
blessings in Christ
Derek
It would be interesting to know, Seamus, did fewer Greeks become trinitarians because of their mother tongue?
It appears the answer is yes. I am not qualified to linguistically detail exactly how or why, but it is an interesting coincidence that the trinity doctrine developed about the same time early Latin texts became commonly used, and was finally formalized about the same time as the adoption of the Latin Vulgate.
Further even after the decision of the council of Nicea, many bishops openly disputed the decision. This resistance did not come from Latin areas, but instead came from the eastern provinces that still primarily used Greek.
In John 1:49 there is no definite article in association with ....King (of Israel).... yet the predicate noun "King" is undoubtedly specific.
In this case a definite article is not needed, nor should it be included. The word King (basileus), is not referring to a specific king, but is descriptive and qualitative of Jesus.
This statement would be associated with the heavenly choosing and anointing of kings and amounts to a recognition of Jesus as the promised messiah.
It seems to me that the article was left out by John in verse 1 to speak to a truth which Hebrews 1 declares, that the Son is "the beaming forth" or the effulgence or glory (apaugasma) of the Father.
I am in agreement with Isomam, and consider all truth seekers my brother. I certainly respect your opinion and encourage everyone to make sense of these things in there own mind and heart. I am only attempting to provide the information one needs to do so.
Your brother, Seamus