This is according to the article, Who or What Is “the Alpha and the Omega”? which also says, "This term occurs three times in the Bible. Revelation 1:8; Revelation 21:6; and here at Revelation 22:13."

They then say at the end of the article, "Does Revelation 22:13 prove that Jesus is "the Alpha and the Omega?" The answer they give is "no," followed by this explanation.

The speaker at Revelation 22:13 is not specifically identified, and there are various speakers in this chapter.

This begs the question? Why were they so "dogmatic" when they clearly stated, "The Alpha and Omega" refers to Jehovah God, the Almighty?"

So to prove their contention that the speaker is not specifically identified they quote Professor William Barclay:

"Things are set down without any apparent order; ...and it is often very difficult to be sure who is the actual speaker." (The Revelation of John, Volume 2, Revised Edition, page 223)

Then the article continues to say

Thus, "the Alpha and the Omega" at Revelation 22:13 can be identified as the same Person given this title elsewhere in Revelation-Jehovah God."

So being a good Berean according to Acts 17:11 I checked out what Professor Barclay really said under the title,

THE CLAIMS OF CHRIST (Revelation 22:12-13)

22:12,13 Behold, I am coming soon, and I have my reward with me, to render to each man, as his work is. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. You can read his complete analysis at the following site.

Bible Commentaries: William Barclay's Daily Study Bible Revelation 22

The Risen Christ once again announces his speedy coming; and he makes two great claims.

Now, one of the reasons the Jehovah Witnesses deny that this is Jesus Christ is included in their own article.

The term "the First and the Last" occurs at Revelation 1:17, 18 and 2:8. In these verses, the context show that the one referred to died and later returned to life. Thus, these verses cannot refer to God because never died.

However, Jesus died and was resurrected.

The short answer is that the one person of Jesus Christ has two natures, one human and one divine. It was the human nature that died, not His divine nature. One cannot help notice the obvious contradictions.

So here's the question: Why do the Jehovah Witnesses quote Professor William Barclay saying "it is difficult to be sure who is the actual speaker?" Clearly his words are taken out of context in that he identifies the speaker as being Jesus Christ in his commentary on Revelation 22:12-13.

The quote by Barclay was used by the JW's to demonstrate that Jesus Christ is "NOT" the speaker at Revelation 22:12-13. I then showed proof from Barclay himself that the speaker is Jesus Christ. This is according to the context which includes Revelation 22:16, "I, Jesus have sent My angel to (not Michael the arc angel) to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright and morning star."

"The bright and morning star." Please read (Psalm 84:11, Malachi 4:2; Matthew 17:2; Revelation 1:16; 2 Peter 1:19.) Finally, Revelation 22:20:20-21, "He who testifies to these things (what things?) says, Yes, I am coming quickly. Amen. Come Lord Jesus. Verse 21, "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all/the saints. Amen."

  • 1
    You should drastically edit this question to simply ask if William Barclay was misquoted in the article written by Jehovah’s Witnesses. – Kris Jul 18 '20 at 22:58
  • 3
    @Kris No sir! Your the ones who made the statement therefore it's incumbent upon you to correct the "so-called" misquote. I merely provided/fact-checked the evidence that the statement is false, based on what Professor Barclay really said which was obviously contrary to to the facts. – Mr. Bond Jul 18 '20 at 23:13
  • 2
    @Kris Sort of! I'm accusing them of using "ellipses." An ellipses is used when omitting a word, phrase, line, paragraph, or more from a quoted passage or source. An ellipses is three dots like this ... In the JW link it says, "Professor William Barclay wrote: "Things are set down without any apparent order: ... and it is often very difficult etc. Notice the three dots after the word "order." They left out whatever else Barclay had said after the three dots. This is why I posted what he really said regarding Jesus being the speaker at Revelation 22:12-13. – Mr. Bond Jul 19 '20 at 0:02
  • 3
    The full sentence that Barclay wrote is: "Things are set down without any apparent order; there are repetitions of what has gone before; and it is often very difficult to be sure who is the actual speaker." The ellipsis doesn't change the meaning of the quote. However, it's true that Barclay believed Rev. 22:13 was spoken by Jesus. – 4castle Jul 19 '20 at 1:12
  • 2
    2 physicians can agree that a diagnosis of a particular disease is difficult to make. Then those 2 doctors may eventually come to different conclusions after making a careful examination and based on experience and other case studies. Still at the end of the day they would both agree that a diagnosis was difficult. – Kris Jul 20 '20 at 15:13

@Mr. Bond Please note that in the article that you cite from the JW.org website states,

Commenting on this section of Revelation, Professor William Barclay wrote: "Things are set down without any apparent order; . . . and it is often very difficult to be sure who is the actual speaker.” (The Revelation of John, Volume 2, Revised Edition, page 223) Thus, “the Alpha and the Omega” at Revelation 22:13 can be identified as the same Person given this title elsewhere in Revelation​—Jehovah God.

The article is using the statement that "Things are set down without any apparent order" to further reiterate that no one knows for sure who is actually speaking. And for that reason the article says,

“the Alpha and the Omega” at Revelation 22:13 can be identified as the same Person given this title elsewhere in Revelation​—Jehovah God.

So they are making a logical conclusion based on other scriptural evidence and not making a supposition based on a whim.

Incidentally Barclay is frequently quoted by JWs. In fact a quick search of his name on Watchtower Libray comes back with 37 occurrences. While true that he identified the speaker in Revelation 22:13 as Jesus it is also true that he says it is difficult to be sure and also true that Barclay said Jesus is not God.

This begs the question: How can Jesus be identified as the Alpha /Omega by Barclay on the one hand and be said not to be God on the other? JWs consistently identify Alpha/Omega only as Jehovah God.

  • In his third paragraph from the end, the OP was making the following point: by applying the same reasoning to the expression the first and the last, one would then be forced to conclude that it refers to Christ (1:17, 2:8); as such, since 22:13 contains this term as well, it would have to denote the same person. Their ad hoc dichotomy between the two expressions (next-to-last chapter) is supported neither by the words' very meaning (alpha & omega being the first & last letters of the Greek alphabet, and therefore its beginning & end), nor by any explicit passage from Revelation itself. – Lucian Jul 19 '20 at 11:52
  • @Lucian the Op is asking specifically about the quote in watchtower from Barclay and why it was used to bolster jws conclusion that Jehovah is the speaker in rev 22:13 in light of the fact that barclay himself came to a different conclusion as demonstrated in subsequent writings by him. – Kris Jul 19 '20 at 12:35
  • 3
    @agarza It's utterly illogical to partially quote Prof. Barclay as a reason to come to a different conclusion than the one he came to. One sentence is wrested away from Prof. B's conclusion, whereas had his logical conclusion being admitted to, nobody would have used his partial quote to bolster their contradictory conclusion. The Watchtower Society had made a similar distortion to what the Prof. wrote re. John 1:1, trying to give the impression that he supported their anti-trinitarian stance when he was a trinitarian, believing that the Word was God (capital 'G'): scholastic dishonesty x2. – Anne Jul 21 '20 at 8:52
  • @Anne you may want to double check on Barclay being a trinitarian. – Kris Jul 21 '20 at 11:39
  • 1
    @Kris In The Daily Study Bible series, "The Gospel of John" Vol. 1, Barclay writes of the Logos, how John was challenging the Greeks to consider "a new category in which the Greek might think of Jesus, a category in which Jesus was presented as nothing less than God acting in the form of a man." (p8) John also exposed Gnostic heresies (that Jesus was not really divine or not really human): "The Gnostic beliefs at one and the same time destroyed the real godhead and the real manhood of Jesus." (p14) Barclay agrees with John as to Christ's godhead and manhood = trinitarianism re. Christ. – Anne Jul 22 '20 at 7:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.