“I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God - the one who is, and who was, and who is still to come - the All-Powerful!”
(Revelation 1:8, NET)
(Revelation 1:8, NET)
The one who is still to come
- Thread starter Matthias
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
This is the Word that was God in the Beginning who came to earth in the body prepared for Him = we know Him Today as the LORD Jesus Christ
In Jewish monotheism this is Yahweh, the God and Father of the Messiah.
While we disagree on who is speaking in this verse - and I will be posting trinitarian sources to support my position - we agree that it isn’t the Triune God speaking.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
Jewish monotheists crucified the LORD of Glory
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. - 1 Cor 2:8
The Messiah himself is a Jewish monotheist. The Romans (pagans) crucified the Messiah, not the Messiah’s God.
Only one person is speaking in Revelation 1:8 - you know that- and that one person is the Messiah’s God - and you didn’t know that. Even after being told, you don’t believe it.
ScottA
Well-Known Member
To be clear..."is still to come" was stated as true in the timeframe of 2,000 years ago.
That’s fine. Who is the speaker?
You’ve been offered two choices, so far.
A. Jesus (a trinitarian offering)
B. The God and Father of Jesus (a Jewish monotheist offering)
ScottA
Well-Known Member
That is true enough according to the times and terms of men, but then according to those same terms, at that time they were One, "us" again.
But is that the point of the thread?
Are you suggesting that the speaker is not one person but three persons, the Triune God?
I’m a Jewish monotheist. The point of this thread is a response to a Catholic member - who (rightly) implied this afternoon in a post directed to me that the speaker in Revelation 1:8 is the Father.
I drummed up a short commentary of this verse 8 several years back that is still valid today as it was then...context rules the day along with the use of Hebraic poetic style. John introduced everyone quite clearly if one can seen his style of writing.
Rev 1:8...
Reserved here solely for the Father of Yeshua only, and for a good reason. As he is unique, in that he is the only one true God and there is no one else besides him. He alone is eternal.
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” (NIV).
The front end or the beginning book end or compliment to verse 1:8 are verses 1:4 and 5
Revelation 1:4 and 5 reads: “Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, AND from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.” The separation between “the one who was, is and is to come” and Christ can be clearly seen. The one “who is, and who was and who is to come” is God. (NIV)
1. It's obvious that we are addressing first, the LORD God Almighty AND then his Son Jesus Christ in the process of introductions. Christ is noted as the faithful witness to these events only in this introduction as the first born .... etc.
2. And It’s obvious John used a poetic style for his introduction - it forms two ends with one rise in the middle. The OT is riddled with his style. You start out with first subject on the 'rise' then join the second at the peak and then back 'down' to the closing with the first subject again, for closure.
The start and the 'rise' with the LORD God the Father, Rev 1:4 - The peak with the ‘.and Jesus Christ...'. Rev 1:5-7 - then back down for closure with the LORD God the Father or YHWH again Rev 1:8.
'...Today there is a growing recognition of literary structural pattern in Hebrew called a chiasm, which usually denotes a number of parallel lines (a,b,b,a; a,b,c,b,a) forming an hourglass or bell curve shape, depending on how you have your axis view setup, often the central line(s) is emphasized...'[1]
Thus, for this example, a = LORD, the Father and b = The Son Jesus Christ
And finally, in verse 8, the angel ended the prologue or initial greeting from where he started, by reminding John and readers that the Lord God Almighty YHWH, not only is the ‘first and the last of everything, but he is also the only eternal Almighty one, who is and who is the come. The emphatic uniqueness of YHWH is expressed here as the only one authority in existence and that he is in charge! See also Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12.
[1] (B. Utley 2012)
Rev 1:8...
Reserved here solely for the Father of Yeshua only, and for a good reason. As he is unique, in that he is the only one true God and there is no one else besides him. He alone is eternal.
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” (NIV).
The front end or the beginning book end or compliment to verse 1:8 are verses 1:4 and 5
Revelation 1:4 and 5 reads: “Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, AND from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.” The separation between “the one who was, is and is to come” and Christ can be clearly seen. The one “who is, and who was and who is to come” is God. (NIV)
1. It's obvious that we are addressing first, the LORD God Almighty AND then his Son Jesus Christ in the process of introductions. Christ is noted as the faithful witness to these events only in this introduction as the first born .... etc.
2. And It’s obvious John used a poetic style for his introduction - it forms two ends with one rise in the middle. The OT is riddled with his style. You start out with first subject on the 'rise' then join the second at the peak and then back 'down' to the closing with the first subject again, for closure.
The start and the 'rise' with the LORD God the Father, Rev 1:4 - The peak with the ‘.and Jesus Christ...'. Rev 1:5-7 - then back down for closure with the LORD God the Father or YHWH again Rev 1:8.
'...Today there is a growing recognition of literary structural pattern in Hebrew called a chiasm, which usually denotes a number of parallel lines (a,b,b,a; a,b,c,b,a) forming an hourglass or bell curve shape, depending on how you have your axis view setup, often the central line(s) is emphasized...'[1]
Thus, for this example, a = LORD, the Father and b = The Son Jesus Christ
And finally, in verse 8, the angel ended the prologue or initial greeting from where he started, by reminding John and readers that the Lord God Almighty YHWH, not only is the ‘first and the last of everything, but he is also the only eternal Almighty one, who is and who is the come. The emphatic uniqueness of YHWH is expressed here as the only one authority in existence and that he is in charge! See also Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12.
[1] (B. Utley 2012)
ScottA
Well-Known Member
This is one of those matters that "rightly dividing the word of truth" is all about.
If we mix the terms of men, history, timing, and this world, with much of what is revealed within that context, but is not of that context...there will be confusion. In this case, Revelation 1:8 does not apply to the identity context of Jesus vs. the Father. As I said, at that point, they are One.
To better understand...rather than considering Jesus as "the Son of God", it is better to consider Him "My Right Hand." Meaning, not two persons actually ever, except for scriptural translation as parables of God's communication and revelation methods to men.
So, yes, the 'isms will disagree as long as they hold to the idea that the ways of this world and of God are okay to jumble. Such is the confusion placed upon all language by God.
Excellent.
So are you saying then that it is neither Jesus nor the Father speaking in Revelation 1:8?
As a Jewish monotheist, I‘m committed to always considering Jesus as “the Son of God”. That’s a non-negotiable for me. Jesus is presently sitting at the right hand of his God, the Father. From my perspective, the “My” in your comment is Yahweh and Jesus is at Yahweh’s right hand. I can take that together but I can’t accept that one way of considering Jesus is worse and one way is better.
Now that should raise some trinitarian eyebrows.
For a Jewish monotheist, two persons is precisely what Yahweh and Jesus are.
I have the concession of your ‘ism on the side of my ‘ism. That probably won’t make any difference to you but it makes a great deal of difference to me. When trinitarian scholarship and Jewish monotheist scholarship are able to agree, that captures my attention.
Sister-n-Christ
Well-Known Member
Why should we believe error?
Jesus was God. Your pov denied the New Testament and ignores the OT foretelling of his arrival.
No one should ever believe error.
My pov affirms the New Testament and insists that the Old Testament foretells of his arrival.
I’m a 21st century Jewish monotheist who believes and affirms - as did a small number of 1st century Jewish monotheists - that Jesus of Nazareth (himself a Jewish monotheist) is the promised and prophesied Messiah, Son of the living God.
Lambano
Well-Known Member
I notice that the Textus Receptus manuscripts do not have ὁ θεός ("God") in verse 8; the GNT does. This may or may not affect the point you're trying to make. Just "says the Lord" leaves the possibility that the speaker is the Lord Jesus on the table. Verse 11 in the Textus Receptus links "the Alpha and Omega" with "One like the Son of Man" (which clearly IS Jesus) in verse 13. The GNT omits "I am the Alpha and Omega" in verse 11.
I'm surprised NET Bible doesn't have a footnote on that. They're usually pretty good about that.
Last edited:
It is a fairly common mistake among trinitarians, binitarians and even unitarians to place all Jewish monotheists together in the same category - some even going so far as to call Jewish monotheists “Christ killers”. Can you hear the hiss in the voice of the accuser?
***
Who killed the Messiah? God himself - in his foreknowledge, in his plan and purpose - had the Messiah slain, even from the foundation of the world. That, by the way, is an example of ideal / notional preexistence.
Did the pagan Romans crucify the Messiah? Yes. Do unbelieving Jewish monotheists have any responsibility for the crucifixion of the Messiah? Yes. Do believing Jewish monotheists have any responsibility for the crucifixion of the Messiah? Yes. Do those who affirm the Nicene Creed (which wasn’t even a thought in anyone’s mind in the 1st century) have any responsibility for the crucifixion of the Messiah? Yes. Let’s not leave out the binitarians and the unitarians. They too have responsibility for the crucifixion of the Messiah.
***
The majority of Jewish monotheists do not believe that Jesus is the promised and prophesied Messiah. There is a minority of Jewish monotheists who do. I’m a Jewish monotheist who does.
***
Who killed the Messiah? God himself - in his foreknowledge, in his plan and purpose - had the Messiah slain, even from the foundation of the world. That, by the way, is an example of ideal / notional preexistence.
Did the pagan Romans crucify the Messiah? Yes. Do unbelieving Jewish monotheists have any responsibility for the crucifixion of the Messiah? Yes. Do believing Jewish monotheists have any responsibility for the crucifixion of the Messiah? Yes. Do those who affirm the Nicene Creed (which wasn’t even a thought in anyone’s mind in the 1st century) have any responsibility for the crucifixion of the Messiah? Yes. Let’s not leave out the binitarians and the unitarians. They too have responsibility for the crucifixion of the Messiah.
***
The majority of Jewish monotheists do not believe that Jesus is the promised and prophesied Messiah. There is a minority of Jewish monotheists who do. I’m a Jewish monotheist who does.
Sister-n-Christ
Well-Known Member
Jesus is theos and kurios - there should be no doubt at all about that - but trinitarian scholarship is good at pointing out that he is not ho theos. That’s an important point, and one which I make often.
Yes, within the constraints / framework of Jewish monotheism.
Jewish monotheism is simple. It is the unitary monotheism of Israel, of the Messiah, of the apostles, and of the primitive Christians. It’s complex only to those for whom it‘s a foreign concept.
Last edited:
Lambano
Well-Known Member
Okay; that was unexpected. "θεός but not ὁ θεός" implies Jesus is a subordinate god, which I would think would be unacceptable to both a Jewish monotheist and a trinitarian.
Postscript: My understanding is that when a Trinitarian refers to ὁ θεός, he is referring to the Godhead as a whole, not limited to the person of The Father.
Last edited:
Similar threads
