The Alpha and the Omega is the Almighty (Revelation 22:13)

Fred

Well-known member
Revelation 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. (NASB)
ἐγὼ τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος

The fact that the Lord Jesus is "the Alpha and the Omega" in Revelation 22:13 demonstrates He is the Almighty.
1. The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible: the meaning plainly is not merely chronological or taxonomic, but ontological and metaphysical; it concerns not merely when Jesus Christ exists or where he is to be ranked among existences, but who and what he is in his essential being or nature. The implication includes his eternity, preexistence, and essential deity. For any created being, however exalted, to claim to be the Alpha and the Omega, as these terms are used of Jesus Christ in Scripture, would be blasphemy (The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, 1:128-129, alpha and omega, J. G. Vos).

2. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament teaches that the "Lord God Almighty" is used in reference to the Lord Jesus.
a. Concerning 'the first and the last' it reads, the eternal One, Rev. 1.17; 2.8; 22.13 (protos, page 554). All three passages refer to the Lord Jesus.
b. When defining 'Alpha', it reads that it "is explained by the appended words ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος, 21:6, and by the further addition ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος, 22:13. On the meaning of the phrase cf. Rev. 11:17; Is. 41.4; 44:6; 48:12" (page 1).
Revelation 11:17
We give You thanks, O Lord God, the Almighty, who are and who were, because You have taken Your great power and have begun to reign. (NASB)
This demonstrates the Lord Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega = Lord God, the Almighty.

3a. BDAG (3rd Edition): of God...Revelation 22:13 (telos, page 998).
3b. BDAG (3rd Edition): On the self-designation of the Risen Lord...Revelation 22:13 (prōtos, page 893).
 
Last edited:
Revelation 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.
(NASB)
ἐγὼ τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος

The fact that the Lord Jesus is "the Alpha and the Omega" in Revelation 22:13 demonstrates He is the Almighty.
1. The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible: the meaning plainly is not merely chronological or taxonomic, but ontological and metaphysical; it concerns not merely when Jesus Christ exists or where he is to be ranked among existences, but who and what he is in his essential being or nature. The implication includes his eternity, preexistence, and essential deity. For any created being, however exalted, to claim to be the Alpha and the Omega, as these terms are used of Jesus Christ in Scripture, would be blasphemy (The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, 1:128-129, alpha and omega, J. G. Vos).

2. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament teaches that the "Lord God Almighty" is used in reference to the Lord Jesus.
a. Concerning 'the first and the last' it reads, the eternal One, Rev. 1.17; 2.8; 22.13 (protos, page 554). All three passages refer to the Lord Jesus.
b. When defining 'Alpha', it reads that it "is explained by the appended words ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος, 21:6, and by the further addition ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος, 22:13. On the meaning of the phrase cf. Rev. 11:17; Is. 41.4; 44:6; 48:12" (page 1).
Revelation 11:17
We give You thanks, O Lord God, the Almighty, who are and who were, because You have taken Your great power and have begun to reign. (NASB)
This demonstrates the Lord Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega = Lord God, the Almighty.

3a. BDAG (3rd Edition): of God...Revelation 22:13 (telos, page 998).
3b. BDAG (3rd Edition): On the self-designation of the Risen Lord...Revelation 22:13 (prōtos, page 893).
Those words (bold above) most likely belong to the Father, and not to Jesus nor to the Angel, nor to apostle John. The Angel is most likely quoting the Father in Rev. 22: 13. Remember, there are multiple speakers changing hands in quick succession in Rev. 22. Read starting from verse 1.
 
Those words (bold above) most likely belong to the Father, and not to Jesus


Revelation 22:12-13
(12) Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.
(13) I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. (NASB)

The same speaker in verse 12 is the same speaker in verse 13.[1] And every time Revelation describes someone as coming quickly it is always used in reference to the Lord Jesus.

Revelation 2:16
Therefore repent; or else I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of My mouth.

Revelation 3:11
I am coming quickly; hold fast what you have, so that no one will take your crown.

Revelation 22:7
And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book.

Revelation 22:12
Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.

Revelation 22:20
He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

Notice also the following in reference to the Lord Jesus.
Revelation 2:23
I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds.
Revelation 22:12
Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.

[*1] "There certainly is no indication that the speaker changes between Revelation 22:12 and 22:13" (Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ, page 343, footnote #14, Robert Bowman and J. Ed Komoszewski)

In addition to the three mentioned in the OP:
1. Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: The word appears in Revelation in the phrase "beginning and end." This theologically rich phrase articulates the power of God (Rev. 21:6) and Christ (22:13), denoting both extremes of beginning and end along with everything temporally and spatially in between (End, page 212).
2. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT): The self-designation of God in Rev. 21:6 (cf. 1:8) or Christ in Rev. 22:13: 'I am the beginning and the end' primarily denotes His eternity but then His absolute majesty (8:55, telos, Delling).
3. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: of Christ as the Eternal One, Rev. 1:17 (in some mss. ver. 11); 2:8; 22:13 (Last, page 641).
4. A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament: spoken of the Messiah in glory, Rev. [11], 17; 2:8; 22:13, prob. in the sense of eternal, the beginning and the end...comp. Is. 44:6...48:12...41:4. (eschatos, page 318)
 
Last edited:
Revelation 22:12-13
(12) Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.
(13) I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. (NASB)

The same speaker in verse 12 is the same speaker in verse 13.[1] And every time Revelation describes someone as coming quickly it is always used in reference to the Lord Jesus.

Revelation 2:16
Therefore repent; or else I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of My mouth.

Revelation 3:11
I am coming quickly; hold fast what you have, so that no one will take your crown.

Revelation 22:7
And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book.

Revelation 22:12
Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.

Revelation 22:20
He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

Notice also the following in reference to the Lord Jesus.
Revelation 2:23
I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds.
Revelation 22:12
Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.

[*1] "There certainly is no indication that the speaker changes between Revelation 22:12 and 22:13" (Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ, page 343, footnote #14, Robert Bowman and J. Ed Komoszewski)

1. Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: The word appears in Revelation in the phrase "beginning and end." This theologically rich phrase articulates the power of God (Rev. 21:6) and Christ (22:13), denoting both extremes of beginning and end along with everything temporally and spatially in between (End, page 212).
2. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT): The self-designation of God in Rev. 21:6 (cf. 1:8) or Christ in Rev. 22:13: 'I am the beginning and the end' primarily denotes His eternity but then His absolute majesty (8:55, telos, Delling).
3. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: of Christ as the Eternal One, Rev. 1:17 (in some mss. ver. 11); 2:8; 22:13 (Last, page 641).
4. A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament: spoken of the Messiah in glory, Rev.spoken of the Messiah in glory, Rev. [11], 17; 2:8; 22:13, prob. in the sense of eternal, the beginning and the end...comp. Is. 44:6...48:12...41:4. Others, the only One, the Supreme, i.e. the beginning and end, the source and sum of all things; comp. Heb and Sept...first and last, i.e. all, 2 Chron. 9:29; 12:15 (eschatos, page 318)

That's like saying the same person who speaks in verse 6 is speaking in verse 7. You are preying on the lack of a direct attribution in some of the verses in Rev. 22 to engage in biblical eisegesis. Jesus is being quoted in verse 12 and the Father in verse 13.
 
I cited plenty of sources as well as evidence.

Your sources and evidence besides your opinion are...?
Yes just remember you are dealing with old slewfoot himself who with twist anything to fit his presuppositions. He is nothing but eisegetical and knows nothing of exegesis and hermeneutics.
 
Then you need to open your eyes.

In terms of evidence, you are bereft of any (see my post 7).
Yes just remember you are dealing with old slewfoot himself who with twist anything to fit his presuppositions. He is nothing but eisegetical and knows nothing of exegesis and hermeneutics.
Both of you seem to have forgotten that Christ said "I and my Father are one." It doesn't mean that that they bear the same identity, nor does it cause Christ to usurp the Father's place.

And if the Father is defined to be "theos" as person in the NT, by Jn 1:1b and by the words of Christ himself, then Christ as person isn't "theos" (i.e. qua the Father), but rather restricted to being "theos" qua creation cf. Jn 1:1c &etc, and only when seated at the right hand of God (i.e. not as man).

The concepts are so clear, it is astonishing that you guys still don't grasp them after all this time.
 
Both of you seem to have forgotten that Christ said "I and my Father are one." It doesn't mean that that they bear the same identity, nor does it cause Christ to usurp the Father's place.
Classic cjab: make a wildly off-base speculative remark and then follow it up with two claims that these guys have never made*.

*As far as I have seen.
And if the Father is defined to be "theos" as person in the NT, by Jn 1:1b and by the words of Christ himself, then Christ as person isn't "theos" (i.e. qua the Father), but rather restricted to being "theos" qua creation cf. Jn 1:1c &etc, and only when seated at the right hand of God (i.e. not as man).
A few facts: 1) "theos" isn't used exclusively for the Father as "person" in the New Testament so your initial premise (first underlining) is flawed 2) calling someone or something "theos" isn't calling them the Father (second underlining) 3) Not true per John 20:28.
The concepts are so clear, it is astonishing that you guys still don't grasp them after all this time.
They don't grasp the concepts because they aren't true. What is astonishing is that YOU don't yet understand this despite the number of times it has been explained to you.
 
Classic cjab: make a wildly off-base speculative remark and then follow it up with two claims that these guys have never made*.

*As far as I have seen.

cjab has tried this tactic before. No matter how many times it is pointed out that he is wrong he still loves to assert his nonsense. He's probably convinced himself of it despite all the evidence that proves otherwise.

 
A few facts: 1) "theos" isn't used exclusively for the Father as "person" in the New Testament
You are in error. Theos either denotes the person of the Father directly (nearly always in the NT), or the Father as the principal of the person of address who are ministers of the word of God (cf. angels who visited Abraham), also John 10:34-46, also John 20:28.

2) calling someone or something "theos" isn't calling them the Father (second underlining)
As a standalone statement the above is true, but it must either denote them as a minister of the Father's Word especially in the Old Testament, or it asperses them as a false god.

3) Not true per John 20:28.
John 20:28 recognizes Jesus as the agent of God's Word and the Father in Christ. It is an Old Testament method of conferring legitimization on Christ, and expressing faith in him.

They don't grasp the concepts because they aren't true. What is astonishing is that YOU don't yet understand this despite the number of times it has been explained to you.
Your problem is that don't understand the concept of divine agency, hierarchically structured. You embrace a flat concept of God, where three persons all have an equal right to be called God. Such is an unscriptural delusion.
 
cjab has tried this tactic before. No matter how many times it is pointed out that he is wrong he still loves to assert his nonsense. He's probably convinced himself of it despite all the evidence that proves otherwise.

I agree with your statement "I [deny] that the worship of Christ is to the exclusion of the Father. The worship [alternatively "confession" per Phil 2:11] of Christ is to the glory of the Father."

I'm not clear in what respect you are saying "I am wrong" or that I engage in a"tactic."

All I am saying is that the Father and Jesus are always distinct and distinguishable, in that they are not co-equal. But they do form one God over creation (anarthrous sense of theos) on one throne, which has existed from eternity.

I believe your three principal heresies are (a) to confound the identities of the Father, who is God, and Christ who is the power of God, (b) to refuse to acknowledge that the Father is greater than Christ (John 14:28), (c) to refer to Jesus the man as "God", not in the Old Testament primary sense when used of men as the agent of God's word, or in the sense of God's Word himself, but as full deity in the Jn 1:1c sense, and whom takes on the appearance of a man. This is the heresy of Appollinarius. See here for further info on this.

"Appollinarius denies the perfect humanity of Jesus Christ, claiming that the Divinity of the Word [i.e. the Word as it existed in heaven on God's throne] replaced the wise human spirit in Him."

The reason why it is heresy is because in heaven, the divine power of the Word is/was due to him being clothed with the glory of God, which as a man he did not and could not possess. If Christ (i.e. the man) is not a full and complete human being in every sense of the word (excepting his origin) in your faith system, you are a false teacher.
 
Last edited:
I believe your three principal heresies are (a) to confound the identities of the Father, who is God, and Christ who is the power of God,

Which was already disproved.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/who-sits-on-the-throne-in-revelation-chapter-4-and-5.10294/#post-770557


(b) to refuse to acknowledge that the Father is greater than Christ (John 14:28),

Which was already disproved:
https://forums.carm.org/threads/question-about-arianism.7684/#post-849573


(c) to refer to Jesus the man as "God", not in the Old Testament primary sense when used of men as the agent of God's word, or in the sense of God's Word himself, but as full deity

He is "full deity" (Colossians 2:9).
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT): God works through Christ in His whole fulness (1:19), in His full deity (2:9) (6:304, plērōma, Delling).

 
You are in error. Theos either denotes the person of the Father directly (nearly always in the NT), or the Father as the principal of the person of address who are ministers of the word of God (cf. angels who visited Abraham), also John 10:34-46, also John 20:28.
I'm not in error. There are several examples in Jewish literature, both in the Bible and outside of it, that show that the word "theos" (whether articular or not) is not used exclusively for the Father. Even in this post you acknowledge this. You are outright lying when you claim otherwise. John 20:28 is enough to prove you wrong and so is Philippians 3:19.
As a standalone statement the above is true, but it must either denote them as a minister of the Father's Word especially in the Old Testament, or it asperses them as a false god.
You know it's true. You repeating your claim that it's not true is the lie.
John 20:28 recognizes Jesus as the agent of God's Word and the Father in Christ. It is an Old Testament method of conferring legitimization on Christ, and expressing faith in him.
No. It is the author saying that Jesus became God again which you would understand if you followed the story.
Your problem is that don't understand the concept of divine agency, hierarchically structured. You embrace a flat concept of God, where three persons all have an equal right to be called God. Such is an unscriptural delusion.
I understand agency and have properly explained it to you in one of these threads. The problem is that you don't understand much of anything.
 
I'm not in error. There are several examples in Jewish literature, both in the Bible and outside of it, that show that the word "theos" (whether articular or not) is not used exclusively for the Father.
As I have always agreed that "theos" is used of men, in the Old Testament sense, I am not a liar. You are the liar for pretending that I don't acknowledge it. Actually you are more than a liar, you are a wanton defamer of men

John 20:28 is enough to prove you wrong and so is Philippians 3:19.
Phil 3:19 is an apt description of your theology, which does not perceive the Father in the title "theos."

You know it's true. You repeating your claim that it's not true is the lie.
Since I did not "repeat a claim that it isn't true," you expose your malice.

No. It is the author saying that Jesus became God again which you would understand if you followed the story.

I understand agency and have properly explained it to you in one of these threads. The problem is that you don't understand much of anything.
As someone qualified in law at degree level and beyond, I don't take lectures in agency from a pompous nobody and anti-intellectual like you.
 
Last edited:
As I have always agreed that "theos" is used of men, in the Old Testament sense, I am not a liar.
You said I am in error when I'm not. That's what that makes you.
You are the liar for pretending that I don't acknowledge it.
If you acknowledge that I am correct and at the same time accuse me of being wrong, then one of those propositions is false. Which one is it? What's at issue here is your contradictory stance.
Actually you are more than a liar, you are a wanton defamer of men and a servant of antichrist.
None of this is true, but I know that name-calling and foot stomping is all you have.
Phil 3:19 is an apt description of your theology, which does not perceive the Father in the title "theos."
I know that "theos" is not a word/title used exclusively for God, and I know that this verse demonstrates that. The rest of what you say is another demonstration of your character defects.
Since I did not "repeat a claim that it isn't true," you expose your malice.
See above.
As someone qualified in law at degree level and beyond, I don't take lectures in agency from a pompous nobody and anti-intellectual like you.
I find this hard to believe given your constant misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the sources you quote. By degree level perhaps you mean you are a paralegal with an associate's degree and ongoing training. At any rate, my credentials are in no way inferior to yours, but I never feel the need to vaunt them because my arguments speak for themselves.
 
Back
Top