back to kingdomready.org

34 Responses to “Revelation 22.13: A Difficult Text”

1. on 19 Nov 2008 at 10:43 am1 Tim

   I know that I don’t have to tell you this, but we should remind ourselves of the import of the resurrection of Jesus. It was not just bringing to life a dead man (that happened before), but the conference upon Jesus of all names, titles, all authority, etc. This includes: “Lord”, “Alpha and Omega”, “God”, etc. You have rightly called it “representational deity”, my preference is to call it “functional deity.”

   My supposition is that for a trinitarian, the most important event in the history of the world was the incarnation. I believe that the NT teaches that the most important event in the history of the world was the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

   So, to me that there is no problem at all with Jesus having these names and titles post-resurrection.

2. on 19 Nov 2008 at 10:44 am2 Tim

   One other point. While I agree that we should not start from the last chapter of the Bible to understand who God and Jesus are, I would say that we should not forget about what God did in resurrecting Jesus.

3. on 19 Nov 2008 at 8:22 pm3 Matthew Elton

   I believe the verse could refer to either God or Jesus even if God and Jesus are not coequal. The phrase “First and the Last” refers to Jesus in Revelation 1:17, so it’s likely that the phrases “the beginning and the end” and “the Alpha and the Omega” also refer to Jesus, because I believe the three phrases all mean the same thing. Some trinitarians claim that the phrases indicate an eternal nature, and that if it refers to Jesus, then Jesus must have always existed, and never been created. But I’m not sure that the phrase “Alpha and Omega” necessarily indicates an eternal nature. It could just refer to divine authority, and since Jesus has been given all authority in heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18) he could justly claim the same authority God has.

   Not to change the subject, but the part I really don’t get is Revelation 22:11 - “Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy.” Atheists quote this verse to ridicule how the entire Bible condemns wrongdoing, and then in the final book an angel tells people to continue to do wrong. Saying “Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong” seems to contradict what Jesus taught in Luke 17:3, where Jesus says, “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.” Clearly, the point is that we are to forgive others, but Jesus also tells us that if our brother sins, we are to “rebuke” him, which the dictionary defines as “expressing sharp, stern disapproval of.” Yet in Revelation 22:11 the angel tells us “Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong.” So which are we to do? Should we rebuke those who do wrong, or should we let them continue to do wrong?

4. on 19 Nov 2008 at 10:23 pm4 Sean

   Thanks for your comments Tim. I think you hit on a major point. The resurrection is HUGE to NT theology and one should not refocus our attention on the incarnation of the word when that event is not made into the linchpin of Christianity. (No one ever says, “if the incarnation didn’t happen our faith is worthless,” though Paul certainly does say this of the resurrection!) So, I’m guessing you are going with the understanding that Jesus is actually called “the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” in Revelation 22.13?

5. on 19 Nov 2008 at 11:02 pm5 Brian

   Sean

   You wrote:

   “Thus, solid grounding exists to say that calling oneself “the first and last” or “Alpha and Omega” or “the beginning and the end” is tantamount to claiming a divine title.”

   I’m not so sure that it needs to be a divine title. It is in these uses, but that doesn’t mean the phrase needs to be exclusively that. I remember from a number of years ago, someone explaining that this phrase expresses the idea of “I’m the only one” Unfortunately I cannot remember where I got that from. For God to be saying He is the only One [God], does not mean that there cannot be other “only ones.” The word “lord” is used as a title for God, but it can also refer to Jesus or to another human being and the context reveals the use. God is the “only one” [who is God], Jesus, is the “only one” [who has been resurrected]

   Revelation 2:8
   And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: The first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life, says this:

6. on 20 Nov 2008 at 9:06 am6 Tim

   Sean,

   I guess I did not directly answer your question, and I may not in this instance, but let me say the following: when our theology depends on co-reference resolution (assigning pronouns to the nouns that they refer to), I think we are in a very precarious position. Much of trinitarian argument relies on this sort of thing because they tend to look for support whenever and wherever they can find it. This is one instance of that: if you are a trinitarian, then you must see this as referring to Jesus; that he is given the divine title, therefore …

   I would say that this probably is referring to Jesus, though I am not sure what the probability is. When we are dealing in probabilities, then we should not make it an article of salvation (I know that you are not doing this, but many trinitarians do).

   Circling back to my response, if the probabilities are that it is talking about Jesus, it does not raise problems for me because of my argument about the post-resurrection Jesus.

7. on 20 Nov 2008 at 9:02 pm7 JimS

   Perhaps the vested power of Yaweh in the name of Jesus Messiah reveals the very fabric of His greatness as in this passage in Titus:
   Titus 2:10 Not purloining, but showing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.
   Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
   Titus 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
   Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
   Titus 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
   In verse 14 is the person providing salvation God or His son Jesus?
   It appears “God” has intertwoven the revelation of His salvation in such a way as to reveal Himself in the very face of His son and thus the passage in revelation is understood by those who indeed worship one God in the name of His beloved son. For those who know “Yaweh our Lord is One” have no problem with text communcating the power of deity and salvation. Only those who have received the deception of worshiping the creature rather than the creator struggle with such seemingly mysterious texts.

8. on 22 Nov 2008 at 12:31 pm8 Delroy

   Personally, I just don’t see a change of speaker at all from
   Rev 21.9 onwards.
   (Rev 21:9) And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, …

   The angel is speaking from this point onwards, and seeing that angels are predominantly “messengers”, the angel proceeds to give a message from both God & Christ
   [compare (Rev 1:1) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:]

   (Rev 22:6) And he [the angel] said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to show unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

   So the angel declares that he was sent by the Lord God to declare these things, and then he “continues declaring” …

   Verse 7 are indeed the words of Jesus, but these words are being given to John by the angel.
   It is the angel sharing Jesus’ message with John! Same speaker.
   Jesus is not speaking!

   As verse 8 shows, Jesus was not there. It is simply both John & the angel present.

   So from verse 10 onwards, after the angel corrects John, he continues speaking right up to the end of the book.
   The same pair, John & the angel.

   So in all honesty, it is the angel that is doing the speaking, giving a message from both God & Christ.
   So Rev Chapter 22 in actuality is not on the lips of Jesus.
   These are words given by agency.

   So verse 13ff are indeed the words of God given by the angel,
   while verse 16ff are indeed the words of Christ given by the angel.
   (well strictly speaking, verse 17ff are the words of the Spirit and the bride, as given by the angel).

   The angels’ words then finally ends with “He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen.”

   Then John says, Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
   Not because he was speaking to Jesus; but rather because he heard his words from his agent/angel.

   Manuscript evidence now shows that the KJV rendering of (Rev 1:11) Saying, “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:” … is spurious.

   Thus verse 11 reads (Rev 1:11) Saying, … What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; etc.

   So the only verses where it appears that Jesus actually uses the words “first and last” is Rev 1.17, 2.8; for certain.

   whilst Jesus does not appear to use the words “Alpha & Omega” at all!

   IMHO!!

9. on 22 Nov 2008 at 2:20 pm9 Sean

   Delroy,

   I’m not quite clear on how you are looking at Rev 22.12-13. In verse 12 who is the one coming quickly? And in verse 13 who is the Alpha and Omega? Are you saying that these two refer to an angel?

10. on 22 Nov 2008 at 7:47 pm10 Delroy

    Sean, I am saying that the entire discourse of Rev Ch. 22 is being given by one speaker, the angel!

    Verse 12 the angel is speaking about Jesus Christ.
    Verse 13 the angel is speaking about God.

    And in actuality, neither God nor Jesus are speaking in this chapter.
    Rather, their agent, the angel is delivering their words.

11. on 22 Nov 2008 at 9:54 pm11 Sean

    ok. So you see a change of persons between v12 and v13. In other words, you would say that Jesus is never called the Alpha and Omega.

12. on 23 Nov 2008 at 4:58 am12 Delroy

    Yes!

13. on 24 Nov 2008 at 12:07 am13 Wally

    It is fascinating to be able understand the purpose of God regarding the future, or his exact will with mankind. I wrote a commentary (brochure distribution) regarding this topic in the foresaid scripture regarding “Alpha & Omega”. . I will add some this information on this blog so that I can share my understanding regarding this matter. What would be the reason to call Jesus “Alpha & Omega”? If he is called “Alpha & Omega” in what context is he referred to? How can we compare this subliminal title or phrase to identify the Almighty God from the Mighty god? This subliminal phrase is relative to the context of its content and meaning. Jesus had conferred powers granted by his Father to do almost anything within a jurisdiction except to raise himself up from the dead. This act showed limitation to his power, not necessarily because he humbled himself to God, but because his power was relative and subjective. Is it true that God has assigned his son to be the one leading from the front along with his angels? Of course! When we read a specific scriptural citation; we need to consider few things: The context of (segment, fragment of a sentence when there is no clarity of the pronoun, past tense continuous noun, adjective, or verb) secondly, the motive on how the writer addressed the application, the literature interpretation abstract, most importantly identify the author’s intent, identify the carrier or agent to finally be able to grasp the meaning of such statement (s). So, let’s see why there is such a paradox trying to understand the following citations:

    Revelation 1:5-6 (NIV) “and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.
    To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.”
    According to this context, Jesus is the faithful witness…of whom? Obviously of his God and Father…Why Jesus called him -his Father and God? It shows that he is an agent of the Father’s will; Nonetheless, he is not just an agent but the son of God “as anointed and enthroned king” with his special group of “priests and kings”, Jesus also has other co-rulers right? See verse 6 and also Rev 5:10 Rev 14:1 when we read Rev1:8”I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”
    The statement prior to this statement as the context referred to the Father and God, not to mention the statement here does not specify “who” but the context said who is the faithful witness and his co-rulers who worshipped to- the Father and God. For example: Let’s say, the president had a message for the entire country. Who would the president use to send his message across? He has his entire presidential cabinet appointed by himself to carry out his decisions. So, when the spokesman is conveying the president’s agenda, would that imply that the spokesman also has the same title like the president? The same power? The same authority? Equal to the president? Not really, however, the authority, power to speak, the security clearance, the position to convey the president’s message is upon the spokesman but delegated from upper decision makers. If the spokesman is using the “word” we, I, or a title as an entity to convey the president’s will or agenda, why would we assume the spokesman is the same as the president. Intelligently speaking, we can be certain that the president is using him/her to send his message across the entire nation as a whole. Moreover, when we read revelation as a whole, there are few characters speaking to John. First of all, the revelation is given to John through Jesus Christ in a vision through angels and other creatures used as metaphors. The same correlation can be applied here with the message God the Almighty Yahweh wants to convey to the entire world or mankind as a whole for future application. How about Rev 21: 6, 7? He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. (NIV)
    The context here is: Rev 21: 2, 10 ” I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. Here, we can see the “Holy City, the new Jerusalem from above dwelling with who? It says God right? Well, the New Jerusalem that has been described here is also the one in Rev 5:10 and Rev 14: 1, so the same characters here as rulers and priests are interceding between mankind and God. Likewise the president does with his appointees. I am not saying God has a political government or anything like that. I am comparing the organized structure of a ruling over a country with God’s ruling, so that humanly we can understand God’s way as stated in the Scriptures. So, here we can see that God, once his will and his purposes have been fulfilled completely as he predicted. He will also dwell directly with his creatures as a whole. Now, when we read verses 6 and 7 of Revelation, there is only one source of Life, and based on what Jesus said: His Father resurrected him from the dead, and If Jesus wouldn’t have had obeyed his Father, he would’ve had lost his spiritual life just as Lucifer lost his as the son of perdition. Jesus received by his Father the power to also give life to those who put faith in Jesus (to be more specific) John 3:16 When we read verses 6 and 7, it doesn’t really specify first and last as a common denominator as to power or supremacy but Jesus does tells us that he was first and last from the dead. Rev. 1:17 also his Apostles testified that Jesus was raised from dead from God. They never said that Jesus raised himself from the dead. Acts 4:10 Acts 5:30 Romans 4:24, here Paul tells us that we need believe that God the Father raised Jesus from the dead. Why the Apostles did not say that Jesus raised himself from the dead if that was true? The apostles would not lie about this right? What we believe is really important in these biblical citations because our eternal life is in jeopardy if we believe something different than other what Jesus taught to his apostles and disciples. See Galatians 1:1 here Paul is emphatically announcing that we need to believe in the Father who raised Jesus from the dead in order for us to save our souls. If we don’t give credit to God or Jesus’ God and Father, then “that person” is not accepting Jesus as the Mediator and Savior appointed by God. Would Jesus be able to give life if the Father did not grant him such power? What John 17:1 says it all? It is noteworthy to notice that Jesus was referred as the First and Last one in the following instances: 1. Jesus was the first and last to enter heavens before anybody else. 2. The first one and last one to be resurrected by God directly. 3. The first Adam and Last Adam as a perfect man. 4. The first one and last one to forgive sins or condemn before anybody. 5. Jesus is the first promised the assignment to come to earth (not to other angels) as predicted on Genesis 3:15 and last to execute the final battle in Armageddon.
    6… The first and last one to be sitting at the right side of the Father is Jesus. Do you know anybody else sitting at the right of the Father? 6. First one and last one to assisted the Father and witnessed the founding of the world and all creation. Genesis 3:22 & Genesis 1:26 that is why Jesus is called the “faithful witness” All these first instances does not prove that Jesus is Almighty but his Father only. Why? Because if somebody is Almighty that “Supreme being” “entity” does not need anybody in order to be resurrected or ask permission to be granted with such privilege. That is what the word means “Almighty”. Unlimited in power. The question I asked myself when I was eight years old was: Who made God? if everything had a creator right? That is why the Alpha and the Omega is applicable to this question because the Almighty God had no beginning or ending. That is why he is Almighty. Not to mention nobody has seen God and still be alive. His magnificence and power is unreachable. Since the Almighty living God never had beginning and ending, it is appropriate to say that the Alpha and Omega could apply in a unique way as far as unlimited power is concern to only the Almighty God. Who is there like God in power? As oppose to Jesus; he had a beginning. Colossians 1:14, 15 this passage says Jesus was the firstborn of all creation. Remember my question when I was 8 years old? God never had a beginning; all creation had a beginning but God. So that means, if Jesus was the firstborn of all creation, he was part of the creation in which all creation had a beginning. Needless to say, Jesus himself confirmed this on John 17: 6, 24; everything belongs to God, he just grants the privilege to give it to whoever he pleases to. Ask yourself, does Lucifer have power? Of course, this power was given by whom? Does he have special powers? Of course, given by whom? The Omnipotent God Yahweh obviously. Lucifer is also a god. Does that make him the almighty god? NO. Power is relative unless is unlimited and greater than anything. The Father who created heavens and earth manifested his unlimited power in the Universe. If God created everything, which element he created first? If he did, wouldn’t he have created a son first? The power, glory, and honor are for the Almighty God “Yahweh” for an eternity Amen!!!!!

    Wally Folgar,

14. on 13 Dec 2008 at 6:03 pm14 mark schwartz

    God&Jesus
    IAM

15. on 14 Dec 2008 at 6:00 am15 Mark C.

    Paul said in I Cor. 15:10, “But by the grace of God I am what I am…”
    Does that mean he is God because he used the same words?

    Seriously, this has been dealt with elsewhere. The Greek used in the Septuagint for God saying “I AM THAT I AM” is not the same as the phrase that Jesus used when he said, literally, “I am he.”

16. on 01 Jul 2009 at 9:30 pm16 Joseph

    I’m currently in dialogue with a Trinitarian about the context of Revelation and the phrase “alpha and omega, first and last.”

    I find it most interesting in how may people look past the very first verse which defines who is giving the message…

    1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John:

    Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

    Verse 1 is clearly defining that God had GIVEN the Revelation to Christ and was sent by an Angel to John. Am I the only one who finds that rather divisive of who Christ and God are in relation to each other?

17. on 02 Jul 2009 at 6:56 am17 robert

    Am I the only one who finds that rather divisive of who Christ and God are in relation to each other?

    No Joseph there are many

    rev 1 also shows the Spirit of God as separte from Jesus in this verse
    12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; 13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

    the 7 candlesticks are the Spirit of God with Jesus in the midst of them.

18. on 02 Jul 2009 at 7:43 am18 JohnO

    Joseph, I agree about the divisiveness. However, “alpha and omega” has been demonstrated to be how one talks about God/god in Greek literature. And Jewish literature uses beginning and end.

19. on 02 Jul 2009 at 11:51 am19 Joseph

    I do understand the concept in Hebrew as the “aleph and the tav.” As aleph is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet and Tav being the last letter.

    From what I read, Jewish literature has used this phrase in various ways as to the beginning and end of a certain aspect or event. This makes sense in that if Christ is going to be referred to as the Alpha and the Omega.

20. on 02 Jul 2009 at 12:08 pm20 Ray

    I have trouble telling who is who between Jesus and God in the book of Revelation also. I know there is a distinction and also that
    there will be times when all distinction is lost. Maybe that’s one thing that’s being revealed along with so much else.

    There’s a sense in which Jesus is God, but I don’t want to make
    any kind of doctrine about such a thing, or require people to say
    that he is God in order for them to be accepted by me. That would
    be ridiculous.

    There were no idols with God when the children of Israel had some
    in their company. God doesn’t bow to any being for help as if he needed any. God as the supreme mover of all things needs no help
    from any, though at times he may invite or command some to do things for him and that is a great honor.

    I believe Jesus was with God and that God had him hidden in him
    from eternity. Sometimes God keeps things hidden from the eyes
    of man. How much in fact has heaven been hidden from our view!
    Yet, God invites us into his kingdom and to search out some mysteries.

    When God first said, “Let there be light.” I believe that was a propetic gesture speaking of Christ, for it parallels the overshadowing of the holy spirit over Mary and the light speaks of Christ. From the very beginning God had the plan of our redemption. He even gave clues about it.

    I wonder how many things that happened in the book of Genesis speaks about Jesus. I wonder if it’s in the hundreds.

21. on 02 Jul 2009 at 8:45 pm21 JohnE

    Sean,

    I have no doubt that the one who is “coming quickly” is Jesus on the basis of 3.11 and 22.20 where the text clearly refers to Jesus.

    Here’s my take on this passage. I dispute that Jesus is speaking in vs. 12, saying “I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done”, and my reasons will follow, based on the context.

    (1) The first mention of “I am coming quickly” can be found in vs. 7, not 12. Who is the speaker? The natural flow of the passage would indicate that the one spoken of in the previous verses is the one talking:

    Revelation 22:6-7 And [the angel] said to me, “These words are faithful and true”; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place. “And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book.”

    “The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets” is the one coming quickly. Who is this God, what is John’s perspective? Notice how (as throughout the Revelation) John distinguishes between Jesus and God, saying “God and of the Lamb” (22:1,3). To John, “God” and “the Lamb” are two distinct entities. Not “the Father” and “the Lamb” as Trinitarians would emphasize, but “GOD” and “the Lamb”.

    Verse 6 is not referring to the Lamb (Jesus), but to “God”. The fact that no introduction of the speaker is made in vs. 7 naturally leads to the conclusion that the one spoken of immediately before, God, is the speaker.

    (2) The fact that God would speak directly with no intro in vs. 7, 12-13 is only natural when considering that in the previous chapter He was already speaking, incidentally saying that HE is the Alpha and Omega:

    Revelation 21:6-7 Then He said to me, “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost. “He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son.

    It is clear who the speaker is here, He is the one to whom the believer will be His “son”, therefore He being the Father (comp. with the fact that the believers are brothers of Jesus, they’re not his sons).

    So what happens in 22:7, 12-13 is simply God continuing to speak. Vs. 6 and 21:6-7 make the intro unnecessary.

    (3) But don’t we know that it is JESUS who says in 3:11 and 22:20 that he will come quickly? So how can the Father say “I am coming quickly”? That is correct, 3:11 and 22:20 clearly refer to Jesus. And before Jesus, this was said about God:

    Isaiah 40:10 Behold, the Lord GOD will come with might, With His arm ruling for Him. Behold, His reward is with Him And His recompense before Him.

    Isaiah 62:11 Behold, the LORD has proclaimed to the end of the earth, Say to the daughter of Zion, “Lo, your salvation comes; Behold His reward is with Him, and His recompense before Him.”

    Who is this God who is coming with the reward? Of course Trinitarians would have Jesus be that God, only that the context says no again. This God is the one sending Jesus:

    Isaiah 41:27 - 42:1 “Formerly I said to Zion, ‘Behold, here they are.’ And to Jerusalem, ‘I will give a messenger of good news.’ […] “Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nation.

    Why is it said that God comes, and later it is revealed that Jesus comes (just as in the case of Rev 22:12, 20)? Even in the case of the first coming, God Himself is announced as coming:

    Isaiah 40:3 A voice is calling, “Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.

    And in fact Jesus comes. How so?

    John 5:43 “I [Jesus] have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him.

    Jesus comes as his Father’s representative, the God of the Jews. Previous instances exist where it is said that God comes and is present, that He does this and that, when in fact He sent a representative in His place. For example in Exodus 19:11 God says He will descend at Mt. Sinai in the sight of all the people. This happens, He begins to give them the Law, all throughout ch. 24, only to be later revealed that in fact God did that through angels (Gal 3:19; Heb. 2:2; Acts 7:38,53), that is, through representatives of Him.

    Once we’re told Yahweh was in the cloud leading the way during the day - and in the fire pillar during the night (Ex. 13:21-22; Num. 14:14; Neh. 9:12) - only to surface later that in fact a representative of God was there, not literally God himself (Ex. 14:19; Num 20:16; also compare Ex. 33:14 w. 33:2; 23:20-23).

    No wonder than, that Isaiah and Revelation 22:12 say God is coming with the reward, only to be revealed later that His representative is the one coming, Jesus (Rev 22:20).

    (4) Note how Jesus introduces himself as the speaker in vs. 16. Why did the Son need to begin with “I, Jesus …” if it was clear that up until then he was the one speaking?

22. on 02 Jul 2009 at 9:54 pm22 Joseph

    JohnE,

    How would you respond to the Trinitarians argument of Zech 12:10 being referenced to Rev 1:7?

23. on 03 Jul 2009 at 9:59 am23 JohnE

    Joseph,

    The New English Translation states in the footnotes that in the case of Zech 12:10, many MSS read “to the one whom”, instead of the Masoretic Text’s version, “to me whom”. This would not say then that God was pierced.

    So there are 2 possibilities here. Which form was known to apostle John in the first century? He says that

    “another Scripture says, ‘They shall look on Him whom they pierced’” - John 19:37

    The New American Bible, the New Revised Standard Bible (both Catholic) and The English Bible in Basic English, render Zech 12:10 as “him”, not “me”, as NASB does. I for one would rather accept John’s version.

    If one wants to rather stick to the Masoretic Text - which is a form of the OT text arrived at six centuries after apostle John - and insist on “they will look at me whom they pierced”, that’s fine too. Does that necessitate to identify Jesus with God who is speaking in Zechariah? Is Jesus literally that God? Or do we rather have a case here where something done to God’s valued people is considered as something done directly to Him?

    There is an interesting textual problem in Zech 2:8. Many translations render this as God saying:

    “anyone who touches you touches the pupil of his eye”

    But it seems that in fact the original text was saying “my eye”, that is, “anyone who touches you touches the pupil of My eye“. A change to “his eye” would be an emendation of the scribes, a Tiqqun Sopherim. This conclusion is based on a variety of sources that affirm the correct version is “my [God’s] eye”, like:

    - Rabbi Judah ben Ilay - 2nd century, mentioned in Siphre and Mekhilta
    - Rabbi Joshua ben Levi - beginning of 3rd century, mentioned in Exodus Rabbah
    - The Tanhuma and Yalqut ha-Makhiri, following Joshua’s teaching
    - al-Qirqisani
    - Masoretic lists which supply original readings - list no. 206 in Ginsburg’s Massorah; the list in the Paris MS of the Okhlah; the list appended to MS 1425 of Ma’ase Ephod
    - The notes in the Minhat Shai Bible (compiled in 1742-44 by Shlomo Norzi

    (see Carmel McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim)

    Carmel McCarthy adds: “Thus, the majority of later rabbinic sources carry on this tradition concerning the original form of Zech 2:12″ - page 62.

    Tertualian and Justin the Martyr attest this reading also. Some manuscripts of the Vulgata as well. Plus, Carmel says that “From among the Qumran MSS, it can be stated with reasonable certitude that a fragment from 4QXIIe reads ‘my eye’, and another fragment containing Zech 2:12 included among the Geniza Bible Fragments attests a similar reading” - p. 67. Carmel later draws the conclusion:

    “there exists a genuine textual alternative to the MT [Masoretic Text] of Zech 2:12, which, taken in conjunction with an analysis of the literary and stylistic features of the oracle within which it occurs, appears to justify the strong rabbinic traditions concerning this verse” - p 68.

    The scribes probably wanted to avoid the idea that God’s “eye” would be damaged, an offensive idea to certain pious individuals - and this is just one of the emendations of the scribes.

    Accordingly, some translations like NAB, the Complete Jewish Bible by David H. Stern, The Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition, New Jerusalem Bible, the NRSV, render “my eye”, that is, God’s eye. Whoever touches God’s people touches God’s eye. This is then similar to Zech 12:10, where God himself would be said to have been pierced (when His Son was killed) - not literally though, but in a similar way as one damages God’s eye when one damages God’s own. Jesus said something similar when he said:

    Matthew 25:35-36 I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me

    Matthew 25:40 ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

    Acts 9:4 “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”

24. on 03 Jul 2009 at 11:15 am24 Ray

    John E,

    You’ve shown another example where I can’t always tell the distinction between Jesus and God, yet the good news lives by
    the clarity of other scriptures and my understanding becomes
    enlarged.

    I know there is a distinction but I don’t always see it, and there are
    many scriptures that speak of God and Jesus. So many scriptures
    apply to both the same, yet in slightly different ways. It’s an amazing gospel, one that’s always good to hear.

    The depths of it are wonderful, are they not? We should all grow as we hear the good news from each other, being strengthened by every connection.

25. on 03 Jul 2009 at 11:29 am25 Ray

    When I realize my sin I feel as though I pierced myself and in fact
    I have, and it wasn’t only me who I pierced. It was God and the Lord Jesus too.

    And it’s his grace that causes me to feel this way, that I may learn
    to leave it all behind, get free of it, and move forward to that which is
    from everlasting.

26. on 03 Jul 2009 at 9:38 pm26 Joseph

    John E,

    Thank you for that response.

27. on 03 Jul 2009 at 10:34 pm27 JohnE

    You’re welcome Joseph.

28. on 17 Nov 2009 at 5:00 am28 Aaron

    Reading through the comments, I think I have a little clarity about who is being talked of in Revelations 1:1. One fellow implied the text is saying that Jesus is the one to whom “God gave” the revelation - therefore signifying his lesser status. It goes on to say that the revelation was given him “to show to his bondservants, the things which must shortly take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel…”

    This is the exact phrasing used in Revelation 22:6-7 “And [the angel] said to me, “These words are faithful and true”; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place.”

    I would say that the one given the revelation of Jesus in the first part of vs. 1 is the angel, and not Jesus.

29. on 17 Nov 2009 at 8:15 am29 Xavier

    God transmits [through an angel?] the unveiled truth to Jesus (5:7), and his [Jesus’ own?] angel conveys it to John (10:9) for God’s servants in the churches. ESV Study Bible

    Some revelations in the Old Testament (Dan 7:16; 10:5–21; cf. Ex 3:2; Judg 6:11–23) and many revelations in apocalyptic literature (e.g., 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra) were MEDIATED THROUGH ANGELS. Old Testament PROPHETS were called God’s “SERVANTS,” a title John aptly claims for himself at the opening of his book…

    in the context of Revelation, “witness” is the Christian proclamation of knowledge about Jesus, providing evidence in the light of the court of God’s final judgment (cf. Is 43:8–12; 44:8–9). Keener, C. S., & InterVarsity Press. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament (Re 1:1-2). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

    This last commentary should remind us that Jesus, as “THE Prophet” of Deu 18.15-19, is also God’s servant (Acts 3:13). Which in turn brings into fulfillment Isa. 52:13–53:12.

    This ties in nicely with Rev 22.6-7, which could be a reference to both John [the protagonist] and Jesus himself as the “servants”of the “Lord [YHWH], “the God of the spirits of [ALL, including Jesus] prophets”.

    Now God speaks of Moses as a prophet and promises a future prophet LIKE HIM for Israel. In the first century a.d., Jews expected a final prophet, whom NT writers identified as Jesus (Acts 3:22–24; 7:37; cf. John 1:21). ESV Study Bible

    The prophet is invested with special powers, a message and a mission, and there is a special compulsion associated with being called as a prophet. It should also be noted that prophets may be reluctant to speak harsh words or condemnations of their own people. When this occurs, the prophet will experience a compulsion to speak that cannot be resisted (Jer 20:9). Since they speak a message that comes from God, they separate themselves from the words and thus cannot be charged with treason, sedition or doomsaying. Matthews, V. H., Chavalas, M. W., & Walton, J. H. (2000). The IVP Bible background commentary : Old Testament (electronic ed.) (Dt 18:22). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

    “God of the spirits of all flesh” is an Old Testament title for God (Num 16:22) attested in subsequent Jewish (e.g., Jubilees; inscriptions) and Samaritan texts; “Lord of Spirits” is also a divine title (Similitudes of Enoch; cf. similar expressions in the Dead Sea Scrolls).

    Here John especially identifies God with the prophets. Keener, C. S., & InterVarsity Press. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament (Re 22:6). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

30. on 17 Nov 2009 at 11:31 am30 Stacey

    If it is refering to Jesus, it could be because he is the first fruits he is the first human to be raised from the dead and stay alive, and he will live forever and he is also the only human this happened to the first fruits the begining. Also Jesus was giving the highest power under God. When Jesus was on earth he spoke on behalf of God he could also be doing this in that vision… I do not think that this one verse can sum up that Jesus is God. I believe that would counteract with all the rest of the word of God.

31. on 17 Nov 2009 at 4:53 pm31 Ken

    Alpha/Omega, first/last and beginning/end are expressions mostly used of God - as indicated by the original article. These phrases really point to God’s uniqueness. There is none “before Him or after Him” as God. If Jesus is the speaker in Rev. 22: 12, 13 (a real possibility) it would simply point to his unique status as the Messiah, God’s ultimate representative in dealing with humankind: there is none before or after Jesus in his unique position.
    There is nothing about the words themselves: Alpha/Omega - first/last - beginning/end to imply a meaning of “from past eternity to future eternity” or “without beginning or end” as some might wrongly infer.
    There is no Biblical reason that God’s representative, Jesus, could not be referred to with these phrases that are more often used directly of God Himself. I do not see it as an inherent source of confusion if nothing is read into the wording that should not be inferred.

32. on 17 Nov 2009 at 9:03 pm32 Xavier

    In the Old Testament, God truly was “the First and the Last.” The meaning of the title is not specifically given, but the key to its meaning is given in Isaiah 41:4, in which God says He has called forth the generations of men, and was with the first of them and is with the last of them.

    Isaiah 41:4
    “Who has done this and carried it through, calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the Lord—with the first of them and with the last—I am he.” Thus, the Bible connects the phrase “the First and the Last” with calling forth the generations.

    While God was the one who called forth the generations in the Old Testament, He has now conferred that authority on His Son. Thus, it is easy to see why the Lord Jesus is called “the First and the Last” in the book of Revelation. It will be Jesus Christ who will call forth the generations of people from the grave to enter in to everlasting life. God gave Jesus authority to raise the dead (John 5:25-27). His voice will raise all dead Christians (1 Thess. 4:16-17), and he will change our bodies into new glorious bodies (Phil. 3:20-21). However, even when Jesus said he had the authority to raise the dead, he never claimed he had that authority inherently because he was God. He always said that his Father had given authority to him. While teaching about his authority, Jesus Christ was very clear about who was the ultimate authority: “The Son can do nothing by himself…the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son…For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in himself. And He has given him authority to judge” (John 5:19,22,26 and 27). If Jesus had the authority to raise the dead because he was in some way God, he never said so. He said he had his authority because his Father gave it to him. With the authority to raise the generations came the title associated with the existence of the generations, and thus after his resurrection Jesus Christ is called “the First and the Last.”

    http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=153

    The exact meaning of the phrase “the Beginning and the End” is not given. Scholars give differing explanations of the phrase, but the meaning must be closely associated with the concepts of “Alpha and Omega” and “First and Last” because these titles are associated together (see Rev. 22:13). We have seen from the study of the title “Alpha and Omega” that it refers to the start and finish of something, and we have seen from the title “First and Last” (Rev. 1:17) that Christ will raise up the generations of people unto everlasting life. It is clear why Christ would be called the “Beginning and the End” in association with these concepts. He is the firstborn from the dead, and he will be the one to call the last people out of their graves, he is both the Author and Finisher of faith, he is the Man by whom God will judge the world and he is the one who will then create and bring to completion the next ages (see the notes on Heb. 1:10). There is no compelling reason to assume Jesus is God simply because of the title, “the Beginning and the End.”

    http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=155

    NOTE: In some Greek manuscripts the phrase “first and the last” [Rev 1.8] do not appear.

33. on 18 Nov 2009 at 12:18 am33 Brian

    I appreciate Ken’s last comment. It seems like sometimes we can over think this stuff. Sometimes the uncomplicated way of looking at something is the right way.

34. on 19 Nov 2009 at 12:49 pm34 Xavier

    Hey guys, persuant to this post would like your views on the following:

    The English Standard Version or the ESV is a very popular English translation and on the whole it is a very faithful translation of the original text. However, they simply blundered on Daniel 7.27 and here is why.

    The ESV: And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.’

    The Aramaic Text: וּמַלְכוּתָה וְשָלְטָנָא וּרְבוּתָא דִּי מַלְכְוָת תְּחוֹת כָּל־שְמַיָּא יְהִיבַת לְעַם קַדִּישֵי עֶלְיוֹנִין מַלְכוּתֵהּ מַלְכוּת עָלַם וְכֹל שָלְטָנַיָּא לֵהּ יִפְלְחוּן וְיִשְתַּמְּעוּן׃

    The Problem

    The basic problem with the ESV is that they translated a third person masculine singular pronoun as a third person plural pronoun on the basis of no manuscript evidence as a survey of the Versions will demonstrate:

    Peshitta: ܫܘ̈ܠܛܢܝܢ ܠܗ ܢܦܠܚܘܢ ܘܢܫܬܡܥܘܢ܀

    Vulgate: et omnes reges servient ei et oboedient

    LXX [Th]: πασαι αι αρχαι αυτω δουλευσουσιν και υπακουσονται.

    LXX: πασαι εξουσιαι αυτω υποταγησονται και πειθαρχησουσιν αυτω.

    All of these versions and the MT testify to the singular pronoun not the plural. The question is why does the ESV translate against the whole tradition and create a reading?

    Well, there is a major debate over the meaning of this text, and the ESV seems to have offered their interpretation at the expense of fidelity to the form of the text. The debate is over the identity of the Son of Man in Dan. 7:13-14. Is the S of M an individual as the vision in 7:13-14 seems to communicate or the saints of the Most High (7:18) as the interpretation of the vision seems to say? Well, one of the major pieces of evidence that would help answer this question, is who is being worshiped and obeyed at the end of the interpretation section? Is it an individual or a corporation? The masculine singular pronoun would seem to indicate that an individual is in view. Of course the whole debate cannot be settled by this decision of translation but it stands to reason that an English translation should remain faithful to the original, especially when the text is debated, and let the reader/interpreter come to his/her own conclusions on the matter. Indeed the ESV itself offers this italic note at the bottom of the page: Or his kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him. But my question is why would one make the actual written text look like the scholar’s opinion at the bottom of the page and the scholar’s opinion appear as the written Word of God? This is surely backwards.

    Conclusion

    The ESV is generally a very faithful translation of the biblical text, and it is a mystery why they translated this text the way they did. Perhaps a later revision of this translation will redact this verse according to the original text for subsequent generations of careful bible readers.

    What do you think? How should we translate this debated text? Do you have other examples of this type of translational faux pas?

    http://septuagintstudies.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/the-english-standard-version-on-daniel-7-27/#more-63

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website