Question: In Rev 22:12-13, Jesus Christ, the one who is "coming quickly", says of himself, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end". In Rev 1:17-18, Jesus, the one who "became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever", refers to himself as the first and the last. Rev 21:6, in speaking of God, says, "...I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end ...". God is also referred to as the "first" and the "last" in Isa 44:6 and Isa 48:12. How can this be since by definition of these words there can only be one first and one last?
Reply: Revelation 22:12-13 does not have Jesus speaking, but his Father, God. In fact, this verse is speaking of Jehovah in Isaiah 40:10, but referring to his son, the Arm of Jehovah.
"Behold, the Lord Jehovah will come as a mighty one, and his arm will rule for him: Behold, his reward is with him, and his recompense before him." ASV
I am not alone in this. The following references agree with me by noting the relevance of Isaiah 40:10 to Revelation 22:12 in the marginal references:
· The Nestle-Aland Greek Text (27th edition).
· The Jerusalem Bible.
· The New American Bible.
· The New American Standard Bible (1973, reference edition)
Compare that with Isaiah 53:1, 5, "Who hath believed our message? and to whom hath the arm of Jehovah been revealed?...But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." [see also John 12:38]
Here, along with Is 40:10, we have the "arm of Jehovah" as being the Messiah and differentiated from his Father, Jehovah. Remember, Jehovah is the Father (Is 64:8), which, according to Trinitarian theology, the Son cannot be. When you take the entire book of Revelation into consideration, the conclusion that Jesus is the Lord God is not even possible. Jesus cannot be the very God who is *his* God (Rev. 1:6; 3:2; 3:12). The Father's superiority to Christ is shown in the very first verse of Revelation, where Christ is described as one who was *given* knowledge by God. Then come the aforementioned verses where the Father is described as Christ's God. Finally, in recognition of this, in chapter 15 vs 3 we find Christ joining Moses as they sing a song of *praise* to his God and Father, who Christ himself calls "the Almighty."
But why do they both bear the title "first and the last, beginning and the end?"
How have others in the past viewed this?:
"Principium Christus, quia ipse inchoavit perficienda; finis Christus, quia ipse perficit inchoata"; [that is] "Christ is the beginning, because he himself commenced the work to be accomplished; Christ is the end, because he accomplished the work begun."--(Fulgentius (the Latin Father), Ad Transimundum, Lib. II. c. 5; in Migne's Patrol. Tom. LXV. vol. 250, C. [as quoted by Snedeker, ibid])
The First and the Last
"Attend well to the comfortable words of your heavenly Master, whom God has appointed to be the original Lord, the continual Preserver, and at last the righteous Judge of mankind"--(Thomas Pyle, M.A., Paraphrases on the Acts, the Epistles, and the Revelation, New edit. Oxford, 1817 [quoted in Concessions, by John Wilson])
"...the first, that is, chief in dignity, having much greater power than any one before possessed...the last, that is, the most despised of men, Isa. liii. 3; having been betrayed, mocked, beaten, scourged, and even condemned to be punished as a slave"--(Hugo Grotius, Annotationes ad Vetus et Novum Testamentum. [quoted in Concessions])
"Christ is called, in the Apocalypse, chap. i. 17, the first and the last; and this expression, if taken in the same sense as that in which it is used, Isa. xli.4; xliv.6; xlviii. 12, may denote Christ's eternal Godhead. Yet it is not absolutely decisive; for the meaning of chap. i.17 may be, "Fear not; I am the first (whom thou knewest as mortal), and the last (whom thou now seest immortal), still the same, whom thou knewest from the beginning." The same explanation may be given of chap. ii. 8, where the expression, the first and the last, again occurs, and is used in connection with Christ's resurrection from the dead.--(J.D. Michaelis: Introduction to the New Test., vol. iv. pp. 539-40. [as quoted in Concessions])
All of these examples show that there have even been trinitarians who have not viewed these titles as denoting any ontological oneness of identity between Christ and the Father. The last example, by Michaelis, is especially interesting, because he realizes that the title "first and last" was being applied to Christ in reference to his death and resurrection. This is how I view it, though in a slightly different manner, namely, that Christ is the first to be resurrected by the Father directly, and last to be so resurrected. All references to Jesus as being the "first and the last" have this limitation. Let us take a look? "I am the first and the last, and the Living one; and I was dead" Rev 1:17,18. "These things saith the first and the last, who was dead, and lived [again]" Rev. 2:8. "Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead" Rev 1:5. See also Romans 14:9 and Col 1:18.
I suspect it is because of this limitation that made some unscrupulous scribe add the words Alpha and Omega at Rev 1:11. The Good News Bible inserts the name Jesus at Rev 22:12 to make it appear that Jesus is again the Alpha and Omega. So you see, they can only make Jesus the Alpha and Omega if they distort scripture to do so. Incidentally, Hebrews 3:1 calls Jesus an APOSTLE, whereas
elsewhere in the Bible it refers to some of his followers. Does that make them the same person or equal because the share the same title? Of course not. - metatron3@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment