You are on page 1of 24

What About The Alpha and

the Omega?
By Jeffrey D. Dean, Sr.

(This is a revised version of an earlier article)

Revelation 1: 8 "I am Alpha and Omega, the

beginning and the ending, says the Lord, which
is, and which was, and is to come, the
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
That 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

God in Revelation 1: 11?
The answer to the question is clear and a resounding,
NO! In Revelation 1: 8 God gives four titles for himself:
• "Alpha and Omega,"
• "The beginning and the ending,"
• "He which is, and was, and is to come,"
• "The Almighty."
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
That's the strangest logic I've ever heard of. Here's how
this flawed logic works:
Fred is a boyscout, a lecturer, a band leader
and a football star. Bill is a boyscout, and a
lecturer. Bill is Fred's son. Bill must also be a
band leader, and a football star!
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
Then in Revelation 5 it says:

Revelation 5: 1
"And I saw in the right hand of him
that sat on the throne a book written
within and on the backside, sealed with
seven seals."
The one that opens the book according to verse 5 is "the
Lamb of God, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah."

Revelation 5: 5
"And one of the elders said to me,
Weep not: behold the Lion of the tribe
of Juda, the Root of David, has
prevailed to open the book, and to
loose the seven seals thereof:"
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!

Revelation 5: 7 "And he came and took

the book out of the right hand of him
that sat upon the throne."
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!

1 Corinthians 15: 24- 27

"24 Then comes the end, when he
(Messiah) shall have delivered up the
kingdom to God, even the Father;
when he shall have put down all rule
and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, until he has put

all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be

destroyed is death.

27 For he has put all things under his

feet. But when he says all things are
put under him it is manifest that he is
excepted, which did put all things
under him."
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 Missia is "excepted" or is
"someone other than" God. They aren't the same.

1 Corinthians 15: 28
"28 And when all things shall be
subdued to him, then shall the Son also
himself be subject to him that put all
things under him, that God may be all
in all."
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
proxy 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

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 jeopardize 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 Yeshua! This man, Yeshua, 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 lesser 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 without the hope of following
in his example), mankind has not truly been "changed"
(by having beheld him, in all of his glorious splendor)!
In which case, 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! To many Christian
apologists, the best hope we have is of "rescue" from
ourselves. To the Trinitarians 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 for any of us, seeing that the oneness he
possessed with the Father existed naturally for him,
(since they were supposedly 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
identify 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
If Messiah is God incarnate, the vision of some day
walking in the love of God, pure and Holy, dissipates
like a morning mist, for Messiah (being God, and God is
love) was pure love, undiluted and unfettered. 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,” Messiah’s commands that
we “love” as “he loved” were unreasonable demands
made upon poor fleshly creatures and those
unreasonable demands were echoed by the apostles
(who must have been all mad, themselves, urging us to
love “as Messiah loved,”), being that Messiah was
PURE love. It just makes no sense does it?
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:

Phillipians 2: 5-8
"5 Let this mind be in you which was
also in Messiah Yeshua

6 Who, being in the form of Yahweh

(God), thought it not robbery to be
equal with God;

7 But made himself of no reputation,

and took upon him the form of a
servant, and was made in the likeness
of men;And being found in fashion as
a man, he humbled himself, and
became obedient unto death, even the
death of the cross."
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?" If 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,” then why would anyone object to me repeating
it? If their interpretation is true, 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?"
Even if Messiah were once God, (which he most
certainly wasn’t, but if he were) the minute he became a
man, and presented himself to the world as 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?
(Doing thus, they make a liar out of their own Christ)
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 because they continued to refer to him as a
separate person as God! Look at Phillipians 2:9!

Phillipians 2:9
"Wherefore God also has highly
exalted him, and given him a name
above every name."
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, YHWH! (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 from the apostles
themselves which demand we refer to Messiah as “a
man” and refer to him as separate (and subordinate to)
the Father. 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, Yeshua, 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?" I see
no scriptural evidence of this! Are we not to strive to
follow in his footsteps (and in the footsteps of the

This bears repeating: 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 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?" (Otherwise
he’s a God in man’s clothing and is deceiving mankind
the entire time he lived in Messiah!
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 went so far as to LITERALLY 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? Worse yet, we are
calling him and the apostles liars when they said that he
cast aside his deity and became a manservant!

Either Messiah laid aside his deity or he didn’t (and if

he didn’t the writer of the Phillipian epistle is a false
witness, having testified that Messiah became a
manservant! 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."
We undo his entire ministry by saying he was not a
man, since his mission depended 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 do 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?"
Trinitarians say that while Jesus was actually the
person of God, they quote the above letter to the
Phillipians which says that Messiah became a “servant”
in the likeness of sinful flesh! Yet, if Messiah were once
an almighty God (in person) but he left heaven, became
a lowly fleshly man, in order to be a servant he would
especially if he is GOING TO DIE for us, because the
Almighty God is eternal. So, the Trinitarians teach
clearly that even though Jesus was the PERSON of
God, when he came to earth he gave up his
GODLINESS and his GODLY POWER, which, indeed
makes him a man! Who then is doing the miracles of
Jesus, being that he (God) has given up his Godly
powers and become, not just a man but a servant of a
man? Either God gave up his Godly powers or he
didn’t, both cannot be true!
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
Messiah wasn't "really" the Son of God, but was God

1 John 2:23
"Whosoever denies the Son, the same
does not have the Father:"

1 John 4: 15
"Whosoever shall confess that Yeshua
is the Son of God, God dwells in him,
and he in God."

1 John 5: 5
"Who is he that overcomes the world,
but he that believes the Yeshua is the
Son of God?"
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 believe) 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! (Being that
he laid that aside and became a servant).
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
the Trinitarian heresy!
When they worship "Jesus" as God, the name of the
God they worship would not be "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 definitely not "I Was that I Am." Even those who
say that he was once God 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 a heretic for referring to
Messiah as a man, then the Apostles were all heretics,
Messiah was a heretic, and yes even the great I Am is a
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 in 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!

Hebrews 5: 5
"So Messiah glorified not himself to be
made an high priest; but He that said
to him, You are my Son, to day have I
begotten you."
When was this said to Messiah?

Matthew 3: 16-17
"16 And Yeshua, when he was
baptized, went up straightway out of
the water: and lo, the heavens were
opened to him, and he was the Spirit of
God descending like a dove, and
lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven saying,

This is my beloved Son, in whom I am
well pleased."
Notice here that the Spirit of God descends on Messiah.
If he was the Spirit of God, he already possessed the
fullness 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 all along!

Did Isaiah Call Messiah “Almighty God?”

This is perhaps the most problematic scripture for
nontrinitarians in the Bible!

Isaiah 9: 6
"6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is
given: and the government shall be upon his
shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counselor, the mighty God, the
everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”
Here in this verse it definitely appears to state clearly
that Messiah’s name would be “mighty God” and
“everlasting Father.” First we must examine the
original word for “mighty” in this text. It is the Hebrew
word “gibowwr” or “gibbor” which denotes a
“champion” or “warrior.” We know that the great I
Am is not a “champion.” A champion, or warrior, is
someone who fights on BEHALF of a higher power or
authority. We know that there IS NOT higher power or
authority than God! This Hebrew word, when it was
translated DEMANDED that the OF should have been
placed in the phrase. It should read, “The mighty of
God” or “the champion of God.”
Let’s look now at the phrase “everlasting Father.”
Indeed this phrase appears to be translated properly as
long as you have the PRECONCEIVED notion that
Messiah is “God incarnate” and that the Son is the
Father also! Take away this premise and it makes no
sense at all to use the literal sense of the word ab
(pronounced awb). It is very highly unlikely that the
original Torah uses the phrase “everlasting Father” in
the translation. It is more than likely it reads
“everlasting chief,” or “chief everlasting” (Which, as
you recall is another title of Messiah, “the chief
cornerstone”). The context here is a “son” being born,
the author would not turn around and call this son
“everlasting FATHER.” Clearly the translators
CHOSE to settle on the literal use of “ab” here because
they had a preconceived notion of Messiah and the
Father being one in the same person! It’s doubtful the
original prophet would use the literal “ab” because
herein he’s writing about “a son is born.”
We have to be careful when we hinge an entire doctrine
and dogma on the translation of one single verse (or in
this case grossly mistranslated). The rest of the
scriptural record does not support the claim that one of
Messiah’s names or titles is “everlasting Father.” It
would be more likely and even better translated
“everlasting OF the Father.”
Let’s say, for argument’s sake that the word is “ab.”
Why is it capitalized in the Bible? Why does the phrase
say “everlasting Father?” We know that capitalization
is a convection of the translator and that it was not a
capital “F” in the original text! The fact that the word
Father is capitalized is the only evidence we need of the
bias of the translators. They gave themselves right
away when they capitalized the F in this word!
If we call Messiah “everlasting father” with a small f
this could be a reference to him being the “father” and
“author” of our salvation, (for the word everlasting
here denotes salvation).
The question: “is Jesus the Almighty God?” The
answer: not by any scripture I can find.