|
What About The Alpha and the Omega?
By J. Dean
In Revelation 1: 8 God (he who sits on the throne) calls himself "I am Alpha and Omega, the
beginning and the ending... the Almighty. Then in Revelation 1: 11, Messiah calls himself "Alpha
and Omega," the beginning and the end. Was he identifying himself as "he who sits on the
throne?"
Revelation 1: 11
"Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, and, what you see write in a book, and send it to the seven congregations which are in Asia; to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to
Sardis, and to Philadelphea, and to Laodicea."
That it is Messiah here talking in Rev. 1: 11 there can be no doubt for in verse 17 he repeats,
"I am the first and the last," and then in verse 18 he says "I am he that lives, and was dead:" So,
we know of a certainty that Messiah called himself Alpha and Omega, and the first and the last,
but he did not call himself "the beginning and the end" here. However in Revelation 3: 14
Messiah calls himself the "beginning of the creation of God," then in Revelation 22: 13 he calls
himself the "beginning and the end."
The people that say Messiah is God put forth the notion that when Messiah called himself
"Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end," he was calling himself God, since God called himself by the same titles in Revelation 1: 8. You have to love their persistence, but I'm about to show you how this cannot be true, because Revelation clearly distinguishes between "he who sits on the throne" and "the Lamb of God." First, lets discuss how God and Messiah could both be called by these same titles, and how, just because they both have the same title, it doesn't mean they are the same person.
To understand what Alpha and Omega and first and last mean, we need only understand that
God is doing a work in the earth. He started it on day one of creation, and He's going to finish it.
Of course God is the Alpha and Omega of his work, the beginning and the ending, but what about
Messiah? How is he the beginning and the ending of God's work on the earth? Well, if you have
to ask that you haven't been paying attention, and you have never read your Bible! Messiah IS
God's work on the earth, and the culmination of His plan from the very beginning to the very
ending! Messiah said it when he said in Revelation 3: 14, "the beginning of the creation of God."
How can God be a part of the "creation?" God and Messiah are both "Alpha and Omega," and
"beginning and the ending."
We know that God was talking in Revelation 1: 8 when he said "I am Alpha and Omega,
the beginning and the ending," then he says "he which was, and is, and is to come the Almighty."
Also, in Revelation 1: 4 John says "grace be to you and peace from him which is, and which was,
and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before HIS THRONE." Thus, John
starts out by talking about God almighty, continuing all the way down to verse 11. If any one
wants to dispute this, just go get a King James Red Letter Edition. The words of Messiah are all
in red, and you will see that verse 1: 8 is not in red. Thus, even the ancient scholars agree it's God
talking in verse 1: 8 and not Messiah.
Didn't Messiah call himself
The answer to the question is clear and a resounding, NO! In Revelation 1: 8 God gives four
titles for himself: Then, in other places in Revelation, Messiah uses two of those same titles for Himself, "Alpha and Omega," and "the beginning and the ending." So, because Messiah uses two of the titles from verse 1: 8, everyone wants to assume that the other titles apply, too, including "the Almighty." That's the strangest logic I've ever heard of. Here's how this flawed logic works:
Just because God and Messiah are both Alpha and Omega and Beginning and Ending, does't mean they are both "the Almighty!" In Revelation Messiah never sits on the throne in Heaven! Revelation chapter 4 describes the throne, and it never mentions Messiah in there. Then in Revelation 5 it says:
The one that opens the book according to verse 5 is "the Lamb of God, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah."
The Lion, my friends, is Messiah! So, is Messiah sitting on the throne? He's already got the book in his hand then, and should open it any minute, right? WRONG!
This is the most stark proof that Messiah is not God, otherwise, God is taking the book from himself! One more thing must be said about the titles "Alpha and Omega, and beginning and ending." These are titles of authority over the Earth. Messiah has been given rulership over the earth even as we speak! When a King hands over his authority on a matter to another, that person becomes the King's authority. Wherever the person who has been given the authority acts in this authority, he acts in the King's stead, and is treated as if the King himself were standing there! Right now, Messiah has been given God's authority over the Earth!
The word, excepted, used here is the greek word "ektos" which means "aside from," or "besides," or "other than," or "someone else." It's saying here clearly and with out mistake that God is "excepted" or is "someone other than" Messiah. They aren't the same.
In light of all the overwhelming evidence, how does anyone say that God and Messiah are the same person? Messiah is right now reigning in God's stead on the Earth, but there comes a day when he delivers the kingdom back up to God, and he himself will be a "subject" of the Lord of Heaven, God Almighty. How can any of this happen if they are the same person? Even if the titles of "Alpha and Omega," and "the beginning and the ending" are titles reserved exclusively for God Almighty (which they aren't) but if they were, we've already learned that Messiah was "the oracle of the Father, God." Messiah made it clear that whenever he spoke, it wasn't his words, but God the Father's. Therefore, even if Messiah had stood up in a crowded room and said "I am the Lord God Almighty hear my voice this day and obey," Messiah still wouldn't have been claiming to be God! Messiah speaking words that only God should speak doesn't prove he's God, it only proves that he was right when he said, "the words I speak are not my own, but the Father's who sent me." This isn't that hard to understand! A child can see the simple truth here being proposed. It takes a truly "learned expert" to muddy up the waters and turn such a simple truth into something so complicated that "no one" can understand it anymore, then stand back and declare, "of course you don't understand, it's a .... myyyysssterrrry! God doesn't want us to understand everything!" Did God Become A Mortal? I don't claim to be perfect. I only see the potential for human perfection. I have captured a vision of sorts, and I long for the realization of that dream. To see mankind so filled with love and adoration for God, and for each other, that they would never even consider doing anything that would jeapordize their relationship with Him, or that would do "harm" to another human being! Yet, I can only envision this because of a man whom I call Yahshua! This man, Yahshua, is the First Begotten Son of God, and he lived and died to show me that it is possible for a man to live just this way! If this man was actually the Almighty, Living, One True God, come down to earth in a fleshly body to "mingle" with his lessor creatures, then that vision is shattered forever. Shattered because his perfection was natural for him. Shattered because his perfection brings no promise to mankind, no hope of repeating it, no hope of following him into his expression of pure love, for he is God, perfect in love, perfect in holiness, and we are not! Without the vision, and the hope of following in his example, mankind has not truly been "changed" by having beheld him in all his glorious splendor! We have no hope of perfection, and the best we can hope for is to "escape" the hell that is waiting for all who sin against God! The best hope we have is of "rescue" from ourselves. The perfection, therefore, remains uniquely his own, and beyond our puny grasp, as long as we live! What's more, if this man was not really a man, but God, clothed in the flesh of a man, it means there is no real oneness at all for us, seeing that the oneness he possessed with the Father existed naturally for him, since they were the same person, and we mortal frail, decaying humans can never have the expectation of experiencing the same connection with the Father as he possessed. It means his promises to us of "being one with him as he is one with the Father," (John 17: 21)were an elusive carrot, dangled before our noses, but forever withdrawn should we reach for it. How can we, who are born separate from God, ever hope to connect with the Father in the same "oneness" as Messiah was connected, seeing that the very Spirit of God was Messiah's personal identity. We could never indentify with the Father in the way he did, if he was indeed, the Father. Yet he promises us that we will be one with the Father as he is one with the Father? The reality of our communion with God falls far short of the promises made of being "one" with the Father," and either Messiah was mistaken, making false promises, has been seriously misquoted or otherwise misunderstood, and or mistranslated when he said "you shall be one with the Father as I am one with the Father!" The vision of some day walking in the love of God, pure and Holy, dissipates like a morning mist, for Messiah is God, and God is love. We could never, therefore, love as Messiah loved, for he is love. He is God, and we are not! Unless we someday become "God in the flesh!" Let's be fair, though, perhaps this is just a misunderstanding of terminology, a matter of semantics! Perhaps those who seek to convince us Messiah is God, also acknowledge that, he was also a man, and that while on the earth, in the flesh, he cast aside his deity and walked truly as a man. I seem to recall some making this argument, and these are the scriptures they used:
Those who maintain Messiah was once God, and became a man, use these verses heavily. They interpret it to mean that "even though Messiah was God, and equal with God, he found himself made into the likeness of a man, and thus humbled himself, casting aside his deity, and became a servant." If this is true, and God became a man, then why would those who interpret these verses this way become angry if I say "he was a man?" Messiah said "I'm just a man, I'm not God anymore, I'm a servant, I humble myself, and I will submit myself to the death of a mortal being!" If Messiah said this, why would anyone object to me repeating it? If their interpretation be true, and God became a man, and left behind his Godhood, and denied it, then why get angry when I deny it? I'm only following in Messiah's example. If Messiah said that he and the Father were two separate persons, why would anyone get mad at us for saying so? Some might say, they were two separate persons, but they were also "one." Yes, and I've showed you a scripture that says that those who believe on Messiah are also one with the Father, does that mean they too are "God come down to earth in fleshly form?" If Messiah was once God, but became a man, then everything I've said so far still holds true and Messiah was not God, but a man! Furthermore, why would anyone insist on presenting Messiah to the world as "God," when Messiah himself refused to acknowledge it and presented himself as a man? If Messiah, the so called man/God thought downplaying or ignoring his deity was vital enough to his ministry, enough so that he refused to acknowledge his Godhood at all while he was alive, why do his "followers" not follow in his example, and be equally diligent in casting aside his deity? Indeed, his earlier followers, the Apostles, evidently must have decided it was important to not focus on the supposed former Godly nature and identity of the Messiah, for that they continued to refer to him as a separate person as God! Look at Phillipians 2:9!
If the Apostle who wrote this believed that Messiah was God, before he came a man, he is ignoring his Godly nature in verse 9, for, if Messiah was God, he already had a name above every other name, Yahweh! (God). Furthermore, the writer of this verse was speaking as if God and Messiah were two different people by saying "God also has highly exalted him." We, therefore, have an example that even if Messiah were God before he became a man (which I do not believe the scriptures teach), yet even if he WERE, it is irrelevant enough that the Apostles continued to follow in Messiah's example, focusing on the man, Yahshua, instead of his Godhood, and continuing to speak of him as a man and not God! When did the followers of Messiah decide to depart from this example of down playing "Messiah the God," and continuing to focus on "Messiah the man?" Are we not to strive to follow in his footsteps? If Messiah were once God but became a man, and refused to acknowledge being God, but said continually, "I am the Son of man," insisting on being a thought of as a mere man while he was on this earth, and speaking of God as if he were someone else, there surely would have been a reason! The prudent thing for his followers to do would be to always be responsible to make the distinction between Messiah and God, the same distinction the Messiah himself continually made? The Apostles seemed to think that Messiah's refusal to acknowledge his (supposed) former Godhood was irrelevant. Irrelevant to enough that they carried on Messiah's tradition of presenting Messiah to the world as a man raised from the dead. Are we that much wiser than the Apostles, that we can somehow determine that Messiah's refusal to acknowledge he was once (supposedly) God was nothing more than sheer humility? If it was merely humility that led him to do this, one has to wonder, couldn't he have acknowledged, "well, I once was God, but now I'm a man," and retained his humility? Shouldn't we preserve and honor Messiah's wish of being thought of as a man? It's obvious, therefore, that if Messiah were God, (which he was not, I'm just humoring those who teach it, to drive home a point) Messiah would have known that he was actually God (for God is all knowing), then he would have had to have decided, at some point, that it was vital to his message to cast aside his deity, and truly become "just a man," and not just "pretend to be a man?" According to the above quoted scriptures, not only did Messiah "become" a man, he became "a manservant" according to phillipians! Who are we, therefore, to undo that decision he surely would have had to make, if he was God? Who are we to now present him to the world as God, seeing that he himself sought so hard to not only present himself to the world as a mortal man, but to be a man, and thus, die on the cross as a man? Aren't we undoing his efforts to be thought of as a man? Also, if we say he did not become a man, truly, than we are saying he never really "died" as a man, and if so, we have no sacrifice for our sins, the whole thing was a "show," and we are yet in our sins. We undo his entire ministry by saying he was not a man, since his mission depending upon him being a man, "even unto death." If he was "still" God, while he walked the earth, he never clearly said so, and if he was "no longer God, but a man," while he walked the earth, (and this certainly would have to be true if he died for us as a man), then who are we to countermand him, and do what he himself obviously refused to do, which is think of him, and teach him as God? If God shed his deity to became a man, then "by God," he was a man! How dare anyone object if I call him a man? He called himself a man! What arrogance is displayed by anyone who contradicts him when he says, "I am a man and I do not my own works, but the works God has shown me and commanded me to do!"
Questioning God's Ability To Become A Man If an Almighty God decides to "become a man," as we are told Phillipians teaches, how dare anyone say he "failed" in the attempt, and remained God?" They are highly presumptuous, therefore, to say he was really God! An almighty God who sets out to become a mortal man is going to succeed, he's going to be mortal! Why do they insist on insulting Him by saying, "yes, well, but he wasn't really a man, he was God?" If God says, "I became a man," who are you to contradict him? Are they afraid that to speak of him only as a man would somehow be "dishonest?" If that's so, then they are calling both Messiah and God dishonest, because Messiah referred to himself as a man continually, and referred to God as if he were someone else entirely, and God spoke out of Heaven and testified of Messiah as a separate person, as not God, but "the Son of God." Finally, dear brethren, and herein lies the danger, if we say Messiah was actually the Father, we are saying he wasn't "really" the Son of God, but was God Himself.
Notice these scriptures do not say "confess" or "believe" that Jesus is God! No matter how you slice it, even if Messiah were, at one time God Himself, before he became flesh, (which I do not say) he did not lay claim to it, but instead said, "I am a man, I am a servant!" Who are we to say he was not a man? Are we calling Him a liar? Are we questioning God's ability to become mortal? Even if they were armed with the rock solid evidence that Messiah was God who became a man, (which they are not) and could prove this without a doubt, (which they can't), even still, Messiah's Godhood, prior to his mortality would be completely irrelevant! If a man, who was once God, decided to leave aside his deity and become a mortal man, his former status of God is irrelevant, because now he is a man. Messiah is depicted as a "has been God," by choice, the most he can be is a "has been" and not an "I Am." According to those who interpret Phillipians this way! When they worship "Jesus" as God, the name of the God they worship is not "I Am" but "I was." So, they say he "was" God, but we have a problem,the name of the Almighty God is "I Am that I Am," not "I Am that I Was," and certainly not, "I Was that I Was," and definately not "I Was that I Am." Even those who say that he was onceGod, at one time, teach that he gave that up and became a man! He called himself "the son of man," continually, so why they get angry at me for doing the same? Why do they call me an heretic? If I'm an heretic for referring to Messiah as a man, then the Apostles were all heretics, Messiah was an heretic, and yes even the great I Am is an heretic by their dogmas and doctrines! Phillipians 2: 5-9 never says that Messiah was once God, but came down and fashioned himself as a man. It said he was "in fashion" as a man! Someone, therefore, fashioned him! He was a created being! Someone created him, or fashioned him a man! That would be the creator! I repeat, it doesn't say "he fashioned himself as a man." When it says he was "in the form of God," it's not saying he was God, it's saying he was in "the image of God!" We shall some day be remade into the image of God too, because we will be in the "image of Messiah," does that make us God come down to earth? I don't think so! It also says that, even though he was in the very image of God, and though he was equal with God, being God's son, he humbled himself and became a servant instead! Was Messiah "born" the Son of God! Not according to the scriptures he wasn't!
When was this said to Messiah?
Notice here that the Spirit of God descends on Messiah. If he was the Spirit of God, he already possessed the fulness of his own Spirit, and this demonstration was merely a "show," and not real at all! If Messiah was actually God, then God is evidently quite a showman, and he appears to go out of his way to convince us of things that are completely untrue! Namely, that God's Spirit descended from Heaven and landed on Messiah, for, if he was already God, he already possessed God's Spirit in completeness, and did not need any of the Spirit of God to descend upon him! Also, the voice from Heaven was quite a "special effect," too, seeing that God was standing there, right in front of them, being baptized in water! We know the exact moment Messiah became the "Son of God," and it wasn't until he was around thirty years old and was baptized by John the baptist in the river Jordan!
Click The |
