John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto 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. — King James Version.

The World English Bible version evidently supplies the word “God” before “who is.”

Revelation 1:4 is sometimes referenced by a few trinitarians and the phrase “who is and who was and who is to come” is attributed to Jesus. Actually, the context shows that the phrase is being attributed unipersonally to the God of Jesus.  In the context, “God” is presented as one person, that one person “gave” to another person, Jesus, the revelation. “This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him.” Did Jesus give to Jesus the Revelation of Jesus? No, it was another person who was not Jesus, and the other one person was the One that Jesus refers to later as “my God.” (Revelation 3:13) When Jesus referred to God as “my God,” was he speaking of one person, or more than one person?

Then, in Revelation 1:2, this unipersonal “God” is again distinguished from Jesus: “[John] testified to God’s word, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

In Revelation 1:4, John begins to write as though a letter to the seven churches. He identifies himself as the writer, but then begins to identify others from who the message is given. He first identifies “God, who is and who was and who is to come.” John does not identify the one “who is and who was and who is to come” as Jesus, for he goes on in Revelation 1:5 to add another person, Jesus, saying, “and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.” In doing this, John distinguishes Jesus from the unipersonal God spoken of in Revelation 1:4. However, in Revelation 4:8 we find the One who is, was and is to come spoken of and described in Revelation 4:1 and the “one sitting on the throne.” Now notice in Revelation 5:6,7:

Revelation 5:6 Then I saw one like a slaughtered lamb standing between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent into all the earth.
Revelation 5:7 He came and took [the scroll] out of the right hand of the One seated on the throne. — Holman Christian Standard Version.

Therefore the one sitting on the throne is not Jesus, because in Revelation 5:6,7, we find Jesus depicted as the Lamb slain, who is found worthy to take the book from the right hand of the one sitting on the throne.

In Revelation 1:4, John identifies 3 different sources from which he received the message of his letter to the churches: (1) from the One who is and who was and who is to come, (2) and from the seven Spirits who are before his throne, (3) and also from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness. Therefore, John identifies at least two persons which the message is from, the Father, the God of Jesus, and Jesus, the Son of the Most High. In many translations, the seven spirits are spoken of as though persons, although it could be rendered as “from the seven spirits that/which are before his throne.” If these seven spirits refer to persons, then these seven spirits would be seven more persons from who the the message is received, thus making up nine persons altogether.

Some have claimed that the word “and” [Greek, kai] in Revelation 1:5 should be translated “even”, with the thought that this would mean that Jesus is the One who is, was and is to come in Revelation 1:4. In actuality, such an idea would make Jesus the “seven spirits” that were just mentioned before in verse 4. It would not refer back to the one spoken of as the one “who is and who was and who is to come”, since there is another “kai” — and — in between this phrase and added “kai” — and — of verse 5. Nor could we say that “kai” before the seven spirits means “even” in this sense, because it would conflict with the idea that these are spirits are before the throne of the One “who is and who was and who is to come,” since it would make these seven spirits the very one sitting on the throne.

What we would really have if “kai” should be rendered “even” would be:

John, to the seven assemblies that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from the one who is and who was and who is to come; and from the seven Spirits who are before his throne; even from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.

Those who promote the idea that kai is being used as cumulative usually disregard the “seven spirits”, or else they will try to make “kai” before the seven spirits also mean “even”, which would, in effect, mean that the seven spirits would all be before the One on the throne, but at the same be the One on the thone who has the seven spirits before him. Regardess, trying make kai before the seven spirits to mean the one who is, was and to come, and trying make Jesus himself the One who is, who was and who is to come as well as the seven spirits would certainly not give any reason to believe in the trinity doctrine.

Additionally, notice the word “from” that appears before “kai.” This is the Greek word “apo” — from — which appears before “Jesus”, just as was done before “God”, and again before “the seven spirits”, which further indicates that “kai” is not being used here to express a cumulative force regarding one being spoken of before, but rather it is fully a further addition showing another involved from whom the message was be given.

Sometimes some will point the to latter expression of verse 5 in an effort to prove that Jesus is the one who is, who was, and who is to come, for it reads: “the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.” We have here an example of Kai being used as a cumulative list of descriptors of the one originally spoken of. However, in this case, there is nothing before each title that designates that there are separate persons being spoken of, as such as the word “apo,” as we find in the earlier phrases.

The greeting of Revelation 1:4,5 is similar to John’s greeting in 2 John 1:3:

Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

Here John speaks of two personages “from” whom he prays for Grace, mercy and peace, (1) from the God the Father, and (2) from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. To translate “kai” here as “even” would make the Son of the Father actually the Father of whom he is he Son. We might also note that John, all through his three letters, also refers to “God” as one person, not three, and that unipersonal “God” is consistently distiguished from the Son of the unipersonal God. Likewise, from the beginning to the end of the Revelation, when one rightly attributes who is being spoken of or quoted, “God” is presented as one person, and is distinguished from Jesus, the Lamb, the Son, etc.

However, we need to also point out that most trinitarian scholars do not claim that Revelation 1:4 is speaking of Jesus. Many do claim it is referring to the Father.

There are some, however, who in some vague manner who see all three of their assumed persons being spoken of. John Gill writes:

Some understand [the phrase in Revelation 1:4] of the whole Trinity; the Father by him “which is”, being the I am that I am; the Son by him “which was”, which was with God the Father, and was God; and the Spirit by him “which is to come”, who was promised to come from the Father and the Son, as a Comforter, and the Spirit of truth.

This application, however, would actually seem to leave Jesus, who is spoken of separately in Revelation 1:5, out of the alleged trinity.

Gill continues:

Others think Christ is here only intended, as he is in (Revelation 1:8) by the same expressions; and is he “which is”, since before Abraham he was the “I am”; and he “which was”, the eternal Logos or Word; and “is to come”, as the Judge of quick and dead.

The thought trinitarians would like to read into this evidently is that when Jesus refers to himself as “the first and the last” that this somehow means that Jesus is Yahweh, who says in Isaiah 44:6: “I am the first, and I am the last.” Additionally, the assumption is made that Jesus’ reference to himself as “the first and the last” means that Jesus is, has always been and always will be.

What does Jesus himself indicate regarding his reference to himself? Did he say he has always been — that he was uncreated, and that he could never cease to exist? No, he, as the first and the last, plainly says: “I was dead.” Thus he is telling us of a time when he was not. By such Jesus is, in effect, denying that he is Yahweh, who never ceases to be. But Jesus says, in reference to his being brought out of the death condition, “I am alive forevermore.”

This is reiterated in Revelation 2:8 where Jesus refers to himself as: “The first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life.” For him to come to life would mean that he, the first and the last, had no life while dead. If he was actually alive while dead then he never was actually dead.

Of course, our trinitarian neighbors would tear what Jesus said apart and have the expression “the first and the last” apply to the the alleged “God” nature of Jesus while they would separate the expression “who was dead” as not meaning God whom they allege Jesus is claiming to be in the expression “the first and the last”, but rather only the body/flesh/humanity of Jesus. The First and the Last, they claim is God, who did not die, but rather it was the “man” Jesus who died. In effect, they would end up denying what Jesus actually said, that ‘the first and the last’ was indeed dead. In reality, there is no reason to divide this up so, except to satisfy the added on trinitarian concepts. It was Jesus himself who died, ceased to have sentiency, and it was Jesus himself who came back to life.

The contextual evidence is that Jesus is speaking about his being the first and last in some way concerning his being dead and brought back to life. How could this be?

Revelation 1:5 refers to Jesus as the “firstborn” of the dead. No one had been brought back to life directly by Yahweh, never to die again, except Jesus. Jesus was the first. At the time of the writing of the Revelation, Jesus was also the last that had been actually brought back to life, never to die again, and he is certainly the last firstborn to be made alive. There will never be another firstborn from the dead. Believers are now “counted” or “reckoned” as justified and alive, but are not actually raised to life until the “last day” — the day of the world’s judgment. Jesus was also the “last” to be directly brought back to life by Yahweh, since God has given the authority of the resurrection and judgment to Jesus. — John 5:19-30; 6:39,40,44,54; 11:24; 12:47,48; Acts 17:31.
http://hereafter.reslight.net/cdj.html

Yahweh, of course, is the first and last EL/ELOHIM (strength, power, might) in the universe. (Isaiah 44:6) No one can have any power or might aside from him. Even the demons have to depend on Yahweh for any power they have (which power they misuse). They have no power (strength, might) of their own, except that they have received such power from God. Yahweh, the God and Father of Jesus, is the only ultimate Supreme Being. Additionally, none of the idol-gods of men were formed before Him, since He had no beginning of existence, nor can any be formed after Him, since he has no ending of existence.

What we do not find in these verses is any thing that says that Jesus is a person of the Most High, or three persons in one God. The idea of “trinity” or that Jesus is Yahweh has to be imagined, assumed, added and placed over the scriptures in order to make the scriptures seem to support those ideas.

For more concerning this, see:

The study below, written by Benjamin Wilson, is believed to be in the public domain.

In what sense was Christ the son of man?

There is no doubt whatever as to Christ being “the Son of Man” — but in what sense it is asked. Did this phrase mean that he was simply a man — one of human kind; or did it imply something more than this? I think more is comprehended in the phrase. Jesus very frequently spoke of himself as the Son of Man, and must have meant something beyond the idea that some have advanced, that he was the son of the man Joseph, the husband of his mother Mary. I will give a few references for the reader to examine, where Jesus calls himself the Son of Man. (Matthew 20:18; 18:11; 16:13-16; 12:8; 20:18,19; 25:31; 26:64) These are all from Matthew’s testimony. They prove that the Son of Man was the anointed one, and are to be so understood. The Jews also understood the term as synonymous with Messiah. What other conclusion could they or we arrive at after reading Daniel 7:13,14? Let the reader turn to this reference, and see if it does not refer to the Messiah. But why is he called the Son of Man? Surely not in the same sense that I am the son of a man, because begotten by him; nor as the term is so frequently applied to Ezekiel the prophet; nor as used by David in the eighth Psalm, and as quoted by Paul in Hebrews 2:6. The phrase as used by Jesus is always in the emphatic form, though our English versions do not show it. The Greek is–ho whyos tou anthropou, “the Son of the Man.” This definite form of expression implies that Christ was the son of some particular man. Shall we say the son of Joseph, the carpenter? Did Jesus mean this every time, when he used this emphatic form of expression? I trow not. Then whose son was he? I answer, “the son of David.” The Messiah was to be the seed of David, according to the Prophets, and the genealogical records as given by Matthew and Luke, prove that Jesus was the Son of David, with whom Jehovah made an everlasting covenant, saying, “His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before me,” (Psalm 89:36). The genealogical records prove him to be the Son of David. The prophets foretold that the Messiah who should sit on David’s throne, and order his kingdom, was to be the Son of Jesse and David. (Isaiah 9:6,7; 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15; Psalm 132:11) The apostles believed that Jesus was the Messiah and the son of David. Peter, in his discourse on the day of Pentecost, tells the Jews that Jesus, according to the flesh, was from the loins of David; and Paul says that he was “made of the seed of David according to the flesh,” (Acts 2:30; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8). And the glorified Jesus himself declares: “I am the root and offspring of David,” (Revelation 22:16). From these testimonies I conclude that Jesus the Christ was the Son of Man, not in the sense of simply being a man, but because he was the son of the man David, with whom Jehovah made an everlasting covenant, that the throne and kingdom of Israel should belong to him and his seed forever.

In what sense was Christ the son of God?

He was called the son of God while in the flesh. But it is asked in what sense? I answer, because he was God’s son, in the sense of being begotten by him. Christ called God his Father, and God acknowledged him as his son. (See Matthew 3:17; 17:5) If Christ was the Son of God only as we are sons of God, then he was not the son of God, but a son; nor would there be any more reason in confessing him to be the Son of the living God, as Peter and all the apostles did, than in confessing some other believer to be God’s son. But Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and consequently the Messiah. He also required his disciples to believe this truth. (See John 9:35-37; 10:36) The belief that Jesus, the Son of Man, was also the Christ, the Son of the living God, lies at the very foundation of Christianity — on it the Church was to be built. (Matthew 16:16-18) Jesus was more than an adopted son by faith–was more than a begotten son by the word of truth; he was “the only begotten of the Father,” (John 1:14; 3:16; 1 John 4:9). The Father with audible voice, proclaimed him as his beloved Son, (Matthew 3:17; 17:5). Paul calls him God’s own Son, and his dear son, (Galatians 4:4-5; Colossians 1:13).

Objections:

The following material was not written by Benjamin Wilson, but rather by R. Day. Unless otherwise noted, the World English Bible is used for Bible quotes.

One objects that the term “son of man” was a common title used by Jews that meant that the person was a simply a human. According to this reasoning, Jesus was both “son of man” — a human being, and “Son of God” — the Supreme Being. The argument is usually vaguely put forth, but sometimes declared to “clearly” show that Jesus was both man and the Supreme Being. We have never seen any attempt to explain how Jesus was and is supposedly still two “beings” at once.

Of course, the expression “son of man” does in a general way refer to an offspring of a human being. Nevertheless, there is scriptural proof that the expression “son of man” was referring to a certain offspring of a certain man, that is, the long waited for Messiah, who was to a son of a man in a special way, that is, the son of the man, David. In the Messianic sense as related to the promises, “son of man”, “Son of God”, as well as “Son of David”, are expressions that are used almost interchangeable.

Once Jesus asked his disciples: “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (Matthew 16:13, New American Standard — NAS) Notice how the title is used. It is not used as though it were speaking of any son of any man, but it is used as though it was being understood as referring to a specific son of man. Thus, we can see that this title was, indeed being used by the Jews in a specific way, that is, as referring to promises related to one who was to come as the son of a specific man, that is, the Son of David.

The disciples responded: “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” (Matthew 16:14, NAS) From this we can see that the Jews did have a specific application of the term “the Son of Man” in mind, that is, the promised Messiah. They were not expecting the Messiah to be the Supreme Being and also a human being.

Jesus then asked them: “But who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:15) Peter answered: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16) From his answer we determine that the expression “Son of Man” was being considered as related to the promises concerning the Messiah and “Son of the Living God.” In other words, “the Son of Man” is made equal to “Son of the Living God”. It was evidently an expression being used by the Jews in general as denoting the promised one, the promised Messiah, the Son of David.

Brother Wilson in the article above gave a list of scriptures that show that the title was a messianic title. An examination of some of the references above prove that the expression “Son of Man” was indeed synonymous with Messiah (Christ), the one promised to come as the son of the man, David, the Anointed of Yahweh. — Matthew 20:18; 18:11; 16:13-16; 12:8; 20:18,19; 25:31; 26:64.

Another objection is that Wilson stated: “The phrase as used by Jesus is always in the emphatic form, though our English versions do not show it.” Yet John 5:27 are the words of Jesus, but in this place the expression is anarthrous, and could be rendered “son of a man”. Doesn’t this show that Jesus was being given the judgment because, not only was he the Supreme Being, but he was also a son of a man, that is, human?

John 5:27 states: “He also gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man.” (World English Bible translation) We answer that yes, Wilson evidently did overlook this one time that Jesus did not use the definite article. Jesus several times refers to himself as “Son” and to the only true Supreme Being (John 17:1,3) as his Father in the context of John 5:27. Our trinitarian neighbors wish to read into the two expressions that somehow this makes Jesus a hypostatic union — both the Supreme Being and human being. In reality, there is no need to read such into what Jesus said. The statement is that God, the only true Supreme Being, the God and Father of Jesus, gave to the Son the authority to execute judgment “because” he is a son of man. We are left wondering why there would be any merit of Jesus’ simply being the son of any man that would be the “cause” that he would receive authority to execute judgment. The point seems to be that as pointed out in Hebrews 2:17; 5:8, he was made like his brothers, and, his sufferings  while in full to his obedience qualified him to be given the authority to judge. Nevertheless, this was not simply “because” Jesus was the son of any man, such as Joseph, his “foster” father, for if he had been, he would have been a sinner just as Joseph; rather Jesus was counted as the promised the Son of David, to whom the promises belong, having been given a special body untainted by the sin of Adam. (Romans 5:12-19; Hebrews 10:5) Thus, we have no reason to believe that Jesus intended the expression “Son of Man” in John 5:27 to mean that he was simply of a son of any man, for such a generalization would additionally make him a sinner as all men.  It is to the Son of David the promises are made concerning authority and judgment. — Psalm 2:6-9; 132:11; Isaiah 9:6,7; 11:1; Jeremiah 22:30; 23:5; Daniel 7:13,14; Matthew 9:6; 12:8; 25:31; Matthew 26:64; 28:18; Mark 2:10,28; 13:26; 14:52; Luke 1:32; 5:24; 6:5; 21:27; 22:69; John 5:27; 3:13; Acts 13:34; Ephesians 1:15-23; Philippians 2:9-11; Hebrews 1:2.

Some say that the expression “Son of Man” simply means that Jesus was the Son of Adam, basing this on the idea that the Hebrew word for “Adam” means “man”, as used in Daniel 8:17. Others claim that Jesus spoke in Hebrew and used the exact term as recorded in Daniel 8:17. While we might consider that Jesus was indeed counted, or reckoned, as a son of Adam, due to the lineage of his foster father, and his mother, from the usage of the phrase in the New Testament, we highly doubt that this is what Jesus had in mind by the expression, “Son of Man”, as he applied this to himself. There are some who go off into even greater extremes, and claim that this title means that Jesus was actually an reincarnation of Adam. How this phrase should show that Jesus is an reincarnation of Adam is vaguely argued, to say the least, for how can stating that one is the son of a person mean that the son is the one of whom he is the son? At any rate, we believe it best to simply stay by the scriptures, rather than add all this extra-Biblical philosophy to the scriptures.

Nevertheless, we need to bear out that if Jesus had been the son of Adam in the sense that all mankind is, this would have made him also a sinner as all of us. Jesus actually had not father on earth, and thus was not contaminated with Adamic sin that pervades mankind. (Romans 5:12-19) Adam lost the dominion for man because of his sin, so that now we do not yet see all things in subjection to man. (Hebrews 2:8) Jesus did come as human, a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory, and provided the redemption price to restore this glory and dominion to man (not to angels). — Hebrews 2:9.

Although Jesus was not actually under the condemnation through Adam (in him was life — John 1:4), he did willingly submit to undergoing the penalty of the condemnation in order to take the condemnation off Adam and the race in Adam’s loins. (Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; Hebrews 2:9) It is in this manner that he who knew no sin was sin for us. — 1 Corinthians 5:21.

Thus the term, Son of Man, is not being used to represent one in condemnation, which would be the case had Jesus actually been born simply as a “son of Adam” as the rest of the human race, for the human race through Adam are sinful flesh, dying (1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 5:12-19 – See New American Standard), since through Adam the many — the whole human race — are made sinners. Had Jesus been of such sinful stock, he could not have had life (John 1:4), nor could he have died for our sins.  As the son of  the man, having received a specially prepared body from God (Hebrews 10:5), Jesus in the days of his flesh was indeed, the Son of God, as was Adam before Adam sinned, the sinless Adam being a type of the Messiah. (Luke 3:38;  Romans 5:14) Nevertheless, the title, Son of the Man, refers more especially to the inheritance of the higher dominion that is to restore man’s glory and dominion over the animal kingdom. — Daniel 2:35,44; Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:6-9; Matthew 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 16:13,27; 20:30,31; 21:29,15; 22:42; Mark 10:47,48; 12:35; Luke 1:32; 18:38,39; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8; Revelation 5:5; 20:1-5.

Jesus was counted, or reckoned, as the seed of David because of his parents, even though Jesus’ actual father was God in heaven. As a result of having God as his Father, was did Adam before Adam sinned, Jesus’ human soul, including his body and his blood, was not tainted by the sin of Adam, as are the rest of mankind. How did Jesus’ body come down from heaven? Does
this mean that Jesus was a human with a body of flesh before coming to into
the world? We know that Jesus’ body was formed in the womb of Mary, but the conception of the flesh was from the God of Jesus by means of the holy spirit. (Matthew 1:20) This does not mean that the flesh that was conceived  — begotten — was God Almighty, but rather, the scripture says that Jesus’ body was prepared for him by his God (Hebrews 10:5), for the purpose of its being an offering for sin. (Hebrews 10:10; John 6:51) Jesus spoke of his body, his flesh, in John 6:32 as symbolically the “bread of life” that was from the only true God, his Father, who sent Jesus. “My Father gives you the true bread out of heaven.” (John 17:1,3) Thus, while his body was formed in the womb of Mary, the God of Jesus was the one who prepared his body. His body was not tainted by the sinful flesh of mankind. (Romans 8:3) Jesus was without sin, he never fell short of the glory of God, as those who are dying “in Adam”. (Romans 3:23; 1 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5) He was not ‘by nature a child of wrath’ as mankind in general, due to the sin of Adam. (Ephesians 2:3) Having no sin, the was the “bread of life”. In him was life, a sinless life, equal ot that of Adam’s before Adam sinned, which he could offer in sacrifice for the world of mankind dying in Adam — the just for the unjust. (John 1:4; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Peter 3:18) He could offer his flesh — his humanity — as a sacrifice for sin, and thus by our symbolically eating and partaking of his flesh, through faith in him, we can have life.

Updated: November 30, 2005; May 30, 2009.

In the last book of the Bible, we again find this expression “first and last”. At least twice it is applied to Jesus in Revelation 1:17 and Revelation 2:8. Thus our trinitarian and oneness neighbors would have us accept this as proof that Jesus is Yahweh, since the phrase is applied to both Yahweh and Jesus. The phrase appears also in Revelation 22:13, where Yahweh applies it to himself.

Another similar phrase found in Revelation 21:6 and 22:13 is “beginning and the end”. These scriptures apply to Yahweh; thus this phrase is not applied to Jesus.

We find the phrase — Alpha and Omega — in Revelation 1:8; 21:6; 22:13 — all three of which refer to Yahweh. This phrase is therefore not used of Jesus.

Looking at Revelation 1:1, we note that the Revelation is from God who gave it to Jesus. (This should be enough to prove that Jesus is not his God.) The message is delivered through an angel to John. In Revelation 1:4 John says the message is from the Father, Yahweh, who is and who was and who is to come. Then in verse 5, John says: “and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood.” Many translations make a distinction between Jesus and “his God” in Revelation 1:6, as, for instance, The World English Bible translation: “he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father.” Thus John identifies two individuals which the messages are from, the Father, Yahweh, and Jesus, God’s Son.

Then in verse 8 we find the quote: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End’, says the Lord God, ‘the being who was and who is to come — the Almighty.’”

Isaiah 6:3 – One cried to another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is Yahweh of Hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

These scriptures are sometimes cited as proof of the trinitarian dogma, since it uses the word “holy” three times.

This has to be Yahweh, the God of Jesus, referred to in Revelation 4:8, since this One is spoken of unipersonally in Revelation 5:1 as the One holding the scroll in His right hand. In Revelation 5:7 we find that the Lamb, Jesus, takes the scroll out of the hand of the one sitting on the throne. This shows that the one sitting on the throne, called “the Lord God, The Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come” in Revelation 4:8 is indeed unipersonally the God and Father of Jesus, and not Jesus himself.

The phrase “who was and who is and who is to come” is simply another way of saying the same thing as “from everlasting to everlasting” as found in Psalm 90:2. Only the God of Jesus is Almighty. Only the God of Jesus is “from everlasting to everlasting.” Jesus is not being made “almighty” in the power and authority given him by the only true Almighty. (Matthew 28:18) It is evident that the power and authority given to Jesus is from One who is more powerful than the power and authority given. (1 Corinthians 15:27) If Jesus actually had been made Almighty, this would mean that there are two Supreme Beings, but that only one of them had been Almighty from eternity past, since the other had to be made Almighty by the other. In reality, only Yahweh unipersonally is the Almighty. Jesus is, always has been and will always be, of a lesser glory in his bodily substance than Yahweh, his God. Yahweh is the only one who has the distinct glory as the Most High. — 1 Corinthians 15:40,41.

In Revelation 1:9,10 John refers to himself when he heard a loud voice, as of a trumpet, (verse 11) saying, “Write what you see…” This quote is from Jesus, not Yahweh, as described in the following verses. In verse 18 Jesus says: “I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore.” Jesus was actually dead and not alive anywhere, if this is to make any sense at all, for he contrasts his being dead with being alive forevermore. Now we know that God cannot die, so Jesus is thus by this verse proved to not be God Almighty.

What has to be added to, and read into Revelation 4:8 to have this support the trinitarian dogma, is that one of the words “holy” represents the God and Father of Jesus, while and other one of the words “holy” represents the God-Son of the God and Father of Jesus, and that other word “holy” represents the holy spirit of the God and Father of Jesus. Since Revelation 4:8 also attributes all three usages of “holy” to the One who was and who is and who is to come, that is, the One who is depicted as sitting on the throne (Revelation 4:9), then the trinitarian has to add some explanation, and read whatever explanation they give into, the scriptures since the Lamb is depicted as taking the scroll from this One who was and who is and who is to come. (Revelation 5:6,7) Usually, however, we find no explanation given for the self-contradiction. Some simply explain the self-contradiction as one of the “mysteries” of the trinity.

In actuality, the Lamb who approaches the One who was and who is and who is to come in order to take the scroll from that One is not that One from whom he takes the scroll. Rather than proving the trinitarian dogma, Revelation 4:8,9 associated with Revelation 5:6,7 show that the trinity dogma is not true. Only the One who is depicted as sitting on the throne, the One who was and who is and who is to come is the Almighty. Jesus is never depicted as the “Almighty” from whom Jesus, the Lamb, receives the scroll. This corresponds with Revelation 1:1, where we read that God gave to Jesus the revelation so that Jesus could give it to John.

Why, then, is the word “holy” repeated three times?

Some point out that the Sinaitic Manuscript and some others have holy eight times in this verse; if this was the way John originally received the revelation, then the word “holy” is used of the God and Father of Jesus eight times! Thus some point out the significance of the number eight as used in the Bible: The Jewish child was circumcised on the eighth day (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59; Philippians 3:5) signifying purification and holiness of heart (Exodus 6:12; Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6; Matthew 12:34); seven days a sheep was to be with its dam, and on the eighth given to Yahweh (Exodus 22:30); the eighth day after the seven days of Feast of Tabernacles was to be a holy convocation to Yahweh. (Leviticus 23:36,39) Eight signifies the day following the seven days of the week, the day of renewal, and thus many believe that eighth day signifies the 1,000 years to follow Christ’s millennial reign, for then all things will have been completly been made new, but not this only, but that all things will have been brought to full perfection. ( Revelation 21:1-5) Thus it is thought the eight “holy”s signify Yahweh’s actual perfect holiness, his absolute purity, which will be eventually be revealed in the ages to come.

However, the corresponding scripture in Isaiah 6:3 only has holy three times, not eight times, so we feel proned to believe that in Revelation 4:8, the original also only had “holy” three times.

To many trinitarians, the “thrice holy” is thought in some vague manner to mean the trinity, as mentioned above.

There is no “and” in these three declarations that Yahweh is holy, neither in the Hebrew nor the Greek. For emphasis, Yahweh is “thrice” pronounced as holy, but it is not that Yahweh is “thrice holy”, or holy three times. It is similar to:

Ezekiel 21:27 – I will overturn, overturn, overturn it: this also shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it [him].

God is not saying that he will overturn the prince of Israel (evidently Zedekiah) three times; he is repeating the word for emphasis. It appears the usage of word three times is used to designate the superlative degree, not to emphasize what is being spoken of as being three times.

Regarding Ezekiel 21:27:

According to the trinitarian, the phrase “the first and the last” offers proof that Jesus is Yahweh, since the same phrase is used of Yahweh. It is claimed that there can only be one first and last, and thus this phrase shows that the one who is speaking here is Yahweh, the Most High. In speaking of this phrase as applied to Jesus, one trinitarian site states: “To the ancient Christian culture this would understand this to refer to Jesus’ eternity.” This, of course, is an assertion, and we have no reason to accept this assertion as fact. However, the point is that most trinitarians would seem to read into the phrase “the first and the last” some meaning of eternity, which, to the trinitarian, would mean that Jesus either exists outside of all time, or that he has always existed for all eternity past.  And this is where the paradox of Revelation 2:8 comes in as the trinitarian seeks to apply such a thought to this verse.

The trinitarian or anyone who believes in the alleged “dual natures” of Christ, in order to apply this Revelation 2:8 so as read into this that Jesus is God, has to split the sentence stated by Jesus up into two parts so as to apply the phrase “the first and the last” to the idea of Jesus as God to that phrase, and then the latter part of the sentence, “who was dead”, they would claim applies only to the human “nature” of Jesus, and not “the first and the last.” The title “the frst and the last”, they claim, applies only to God, and most of the trinitarians will tell you that they do not believe the that God “nature” or “being” of Jesus died, but rather that only his human “nature” or “being” died. Thus, this idea, applied to this scripture, would have it that “the first and the last” did not die, but rather that the human body into which “the first and the last”  was “incarnated” died.

I am sure that most trinitarians do not consciously reckon with this scripture as we have presented, but, in effect, this is what they have to do in order to get the sentence to appear to support their trinitarian dogma, and their “hypostatic union” theories. However, it is also true that, in effect, such an application to Revelation 2:8 actually denies that it was “the first and the last” who died. In actuality, what Jesus said was: “The first and the last, who was dead.”  He declares that “the first and the last” was dead. He did not say, as the trinitarian would seem to have it say: “I am the first and the last who did not die, but who as a human being, was dead.” In other words, the trinitarian, as well as any others who would see the dualistic view into this verse, actually end up denying what Jesus said, that the “first and the last” “was dead”.

Jesus, of course, was the first and the last to be brought forth from death, directly by his God and Father, by means of his holy spirit, never to die again. (Acts 2:24,32,26; 3:15; 4:10; 10:40; 13:30,33,37; 17:31; Romans 4:24; 8:11; 10:9; 1 Corinthians 6:14; 15:15; Galatians 1:1; Colossians 2:11,12; 1 Thessalonians 1:9,10; 1 Peter 1:21; 3:18) All the rest who are brought forth to life in the last day will be brought forth through Jesus as the Agent of Yahweh. — John 5:21,22,25,27,28,29;  6:39,40,44,54; 11:24; 12:47,48; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Romans 2:16.

There is nothing in any of this, however, to support the ideas that Jesus is Yahweh, dual “natures” of Jesus, hypostatic union, trinity doctrine, oneness doctrine, etc. Like all of the scriptures presented to allegedly support the added-on doctrines, the dogma has to be assumed, added to, and read into what Jesus said.