SHORT CHRISTIAN READINGS SELECTED FOR FORMER JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES



"Is Jesus Yahweh?"

By David Brown

(edited)


The name Yahweh (or Jehovah) appears nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. Most English translations render the Hebrew name for God as LORD, while some (like the New Jerusalem Bible and Rotherham's Emphasized Bible ) use "Yahweh" and others (like the American Standard Version of 1901 and the New World Translation ) use "Jehovah". 

But, between Malachi and Matthew the Name suddenly disappears! There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and not one of them has the Name in either Greek or Hebrew letters. The Watchtower Society claims that the Name was there in the original Greek N.T., but that it was later removed. They claim this with no real evidence, for they are unable to produce even one manuscript of the Greek New Testament with the Name! Besides, some of those manuscripts of the N.T. date from within one generation of the original writings. That leaves very little chance for the Society's theory of a conspiracy to remove the Name from the N.T. writings. If we accept the facts the way they are (without trying to change them to fit a preconceived theory), we are forced to admit the Name is not in the N.T.

In the New Testament we meet up with another name. The name that is emphasized in the N.T. is the name of "Jesus". (This makes for an interesting comparison in the New World Translation. While the Watchtower Society "restores" the name Jehovah 237 times to the N.T., their Comprehensive Concordance lists the name Jesus over 900 times!) 

In the book of Acts we particularly notice the emphasis of the name of Jesus. If you have an exhaustive concordance look up the word "name" in the book of Acts. Over and over again you will see the "Name" that the early Christian church emphasized was the name of Jesus! 

At Acts 3:6 Peter healed the lame beggar in the name of Jesus Christ. 

In Acts 4:7,10,12,17,18 we read about the first disciples defending themselves before the Sanhedrin, proclaiming their use of the name of Jesus. 

In Chapter 5 they are back before the Jewish high court. For whose name did they suffer? Acts 5:41 tells us: "These, therefore, went their way from before the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy to be dishonored in behalf of his name." They suffered for the name of Jesus! 

Space does not permit us to look at all the relevant verses. Take time to consider these few: Acts 8:12; 9:13-16,27,28; 15:26; 16:18; 19:17; 21:13; 26:9. In Acts the Name that is emphasized is the name of Jesus Christ!

Why the change of emphasis between the Old Testament Yahweh and the New Testament Jesus? Are we being introduced to some rival deity in the New Testament when we encounter so much emphasis on the name of Jesus? That is the way some nearly react when it is suggested that the answer lies in the fact that the N.T. identifies Jesus with Yahweh. 

Bear in mind that I am not saying Jesus is the Father! Rather, what I am saying is that Jesus and the Father share the same Name and are not in some sort of competition.

Charles Taze Russell, the first President of the Watchtower Society, was firm in his belief that the name "Jehovah" could not be applied to Jesus. He is quoted with apparent approval on page 22 of the Society's official history book Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose (published in 1959):

"We confidently assert that the name Jehovah is never applied in Scripture to any but the Father. It is for those who claim the reverse to give a text, and show its applicability to Jesus or anyone else than the Father. Here is a way to prove the matter conclusively -- the New Testament writers quote much from the Old Testament; do they ever quote a passage in which the word Jehovah occurs and apply it to Jesus? We claim that they do not." -- Quoted from pages 2,3 of the August 1882 issue of Zion's Watch Tower. [Note: In recent years the Society has backed down from this position.]

Contrast what Russell wrote with this statement from a contemporary of his -- J. Gresham Machen, a Professor at Princeton. He wrote in the book Christianity and Liberalism (1923):

"It is a matter of small consequence whether Paul ever applies to Jesus the Greek word which is translated 'God' in the English Bible; certainly it is very difficult, in view of Rom. ix. 5, to deny that he does. However that may be, the term 'Lord', which is Paul's regular designation of Jesus, is really just as much a designation of deity as is the term 'God'. It was a designation of deity even in the pagan religions with which Paul's converts were familiar; and (what is far more important) in the Greek translation of the Old Testament which was current in Paul's day and was used by the Apostle himself, the term was used to translate the 'Jahwe' of the Hebrew text. And Paul does not hesitate to apply to Jesus stupendous passages in the Greek Old Testament where the term Lord thus designates the God of Israel. -- page 97. [Note: for those interested in whether the term "God" is applied to Jesus in the N.T., see our information sheets dealing with Titus 2:13/2 Peter 1:1; John 1:1; and Colossians 2:9.]

Let's consider a few quotations from the Old Testament and see if the New Testament writers had any problem in applying passages containing the name Yahweh to Jesus. We will use the New World Translation for these comparisons.

The apostle Paul quoted Psalm 68:18 and applied it to the Ascension of Jesus Christ. Psalm 68:18 says: "You have ascended on high; you have carried away captives; you have taken gifts in the form of men, Yes, even the stubborn ones, to reside among them, O Jah God." ("Jah" is an abbreviated form of the name Jehovah.) Notice how Paul applies this passage at Ephesians 4:7-10: "Now to each one of us undeserved kindness was given according to how the Christ measured out the free gift. Wherefore he says: `When he ascended on high he carried away captives; he gave gifts in men." Now the expression `he ascended," what does it mean but that he also descended into the lower regions, that is, the earth? The very one that descended is also the one that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might give fulness to all things."

Hebrews 1:10-12 quotes the Greek Septuagint version of Psalm 102:25-27 and applies it to Christ: "You at the beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They themselves will perish, but you yourself are to remain continually ; and just like an outer garment they will grow old, and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as an outer garment; and they will be changed, but you are the same, and your years will never run out." Not only do we here see a N.T. writer apply an O.T. passage about Yahweh to Jesus Christ-notice to what lengths this N.T. writer will go in his scripture application. He openly identifies Christ as the Creator of heaven and earth. And he contrasts the impermanence of creation against its Creator, who is unchangeable and eternal. Does it make sense to think the writer of Hebrews felt Christ was only a creature after seeing how he applies Scripture?

Notice this comparison between 1 Peter 3:14,15 and Isaiah 8:12,13. 1 Peter says: "But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are happy. However, the object of their fear do not you fear, neither become agitated. But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect." 

Now, Isaiah says: "'You men must not say, "A conspiracy!" respecting all that of which this people keep saying, "A conspiracy!" and the object of their fear you men must not fear, nor must you tremble at it. Jehovah of armies-he is the One whom you should treat as holy, and he should be the object of your fear, and he should be the One causing you to tremble.'" 

This comparison is even more striking if one compares the Greek word order of 1 Peter with the Greek Septuagint of Isaiah. The Hebrew says: "Sanctify Jehovah of hosts" (according to Jay Green's The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible ) but the Greek Septuagint has "Sanctify ye the Lord himself." (From Brenton's translation of the Septuagint.) Now, Peter, writing in Greek, would most naturally quote from the standard Greek translation of the O.T.- the Septuagint. The Septuagint here says: kurion auton hagiasate (Greek word order: "Lord himself sanctify"). Peter's quotation in 1 Peter 3:14,15 is practically identical except here he exchanges the word auton (himself) for who is Christ. Peter writes: kurion de ton christon hagiasate (Greek word order: "Lord but the Christ sanctify -- compare the Watchtower Society's Kingdom Interlinear Translation.) It is as if Peter were adding a parenthetical thought to his quotation from Isaiah: "The object of their fear do not you fear, neither become agitated. The Lord (who is Christ ) you should sanctify." Peter was making sure we knew that the Lord we are to sanctify is Christ!

Notice this prophecy from Isaiah 40:3-5: "Listen! Someone is calling out in the wilderness: `Clear up the way of Jehovah, you people! Make the highway for our God through the desert plain straight. Let every valley be raised up, and every mountain and hill be made low. And the knobby ground must become level land, and the rugged ground a valley plain. And the glory of Jehovah will certainly be revealed, and all flesh must see it together." -- Matthew 3:1-3, Mark 1:1-4, Luke 3:2-6 and John 1:23 apply this passage to John the Baptist's preparatory work before the ministry of Jesus.

It becomes undeniable that New Testament writers applied Old Testament passages about Yahweh to Jesus. Can we be sure they were thereby identifying Jesus with Yahweh? Consider this example:

Isaiah 6:1-10: "In the year that King Uzziah died I, however, got to see Jehovah, sitting on a throne lofty and lifted up, and his skirts were filling the temple. Seraphs were standing above him. ... And this one called to that one and said: 'Holy, holy, holy is Jehovah of armies. The fulness of all the earth is his glory." ... And I proceeded to say: 'Woe to me! ... for my eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of armies, himself!" ... And I began to hear the voice of Jehovah saying: 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" And I proceeded to say: 'Here I am! Send me.' And he went on to say: 'Go, and you must say to this people, "Hear again and again, O men, but do not understand; and see again and again, but do not get any knowledge." Make the heart of this people unreceptive, and make their very ears unresponsive, and paste their very eyes together, that they may not see with their eyes and with their ears they may not hear, and that their own heart may not understand and that they may not actually turn back and get healing for themselves.'"

Compare this with John 12:36b,37,39-41: "Jesus spoke these things and went off and hid from them. But although he had performed so many signs before them, they were not putting faith in him. ... The reason why they were not able to believe is that Isaiah said: 'He has blinded their eyes and he has made their hearts hard, that they should not see with their eyes and get the thought with their hearts and turn around and I should heal them." Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory, and he spoke about him." If the Apostle John had no problem saying that Isaiah's vision of Jehovah in His temple was a vision of Christ's glory, why should we? Even the New World Translation Reference Bible cross-references Isaiah 6:1 to John 12:41!

We are told at Isaiah 45:22-24: "Turn to me and be saved, all you at the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no one else. By my own self I have sworn-out of my own mouth in righteousness the word has gone forth, so that it will not return- that to me every knee will bend down, every tongue will swear, saying, `Surely in Jehovah there are full righteousness and strength.'" 

Notice how Paul makes a direct allusion to this passage at Philippians 2:9-11 (NIV): "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on the earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." 

At Isaiah 45:23 we were told that every knee would bend in worship and every tongue swear to Jehovah. Paul alludes to this and says this would happen "at the name of Jesus." Why? Because Paul adds that God has shared with Christ "the name that is above every name" -- the Divine Name. So, when every knee bows before Jesus and every tongue confesses Jesus Christ as LORD, does this detract from the Father? Not at all! Rather, Paul said this would glorify God the Father!-compare John 5:23. (Interestingly, early editions of the N.T. part of the New World Translation had a cross-reference at Philippians 2:10 pointing to Isaiah 45:23. Their 1984 Reference Bible edition has removed that cross-reference.)

Consider these points: What was the most sacred Name to the Jews? Didn't the people of Israel have an intense awe for the Divine Name? So, how could Paul and Peter and John (who were from a Jewish background) so freely apply passages about Yahweh to Jesus Christ? Why did they have no hesitation in identifying Christ with Jehovah? When they called Jesus LORD, weren't they making a mind-boggling claim? The risen Savior was identified with Yahweh of the O.T.! Is that perhaps one reason why we are told at 1 Corinthians 12:3: "No one can say: 'Jesus is LORD," except by the Holy Spirit."

Space does not permit us to continue considering the evidence showing that the N.T. identifies Christ with Yahweh. For those wanting to do an in-depth study I would recommend the book How To Answer A Jehovah's Witness , by Robert Morey. Part 3 of his book is entitled "Is Jesus Christ YHWH?" and has an excellent workbook to work through on the subject. 

A suggestion for the Christian evangelist-even though JWs are told not to accept the religious literature of others, we have been able to get a few to take this tract. Have some on hand to share with your JW friend, or even with the Witness who calls at your door.)


****************************                                    *****************************


The Deity of Jesus Christ

Author Unknown


In the Gospel of John, the writer keeps the humanity and deity of Christ intact throughout. This follows the purpose of why the book was written as stated in John 20: 30, 31:

"Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." (NASB)

To overcome the philosophy of the Gnostics, John had to show that Christ was human in difference to the Docetic belief and yet maintain the Deity of Jesus in defiance to the followers of Cerenthian. Now John has taken us back in time to reference who the Word was in eternity past. John will show us in the first four verses that:

The Word existed before creation.

He was present with God.

He was Divine.

This One later manifested as the Christ was the Word.

Through Him "ALL" things were made.

As we start in Chapter 1 and verse 1, John uses the identical. Greek words used in the Septuagint for Genesis 1:1, "En arch" or as translated "In the beginning ..." to give us a time reference regarding his topic. The obvious conclusion we must draw is that John's "beginning" is identical to the Genesis "beginning" and to further support this are the parallels between the two accounts regarding they bother refer to God, creation, light, darkness and life.

"In the beginning ..." is then followed by "hn" translated "was". Robertson states "Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of "imito" (be) which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (geneto) or became appears in verse #14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos." In verse 14 the aorist "egeneto" usage refers to some historical time in the past as the beginning of this new state of Incarnation for the Logos. No matter how far back we go in eternity past, there was never a time the Word was not. Thus when the time- space universe came into being, Christ the Divine Word already existed.

John now draws our attention to Who was "in the beginning" and he identifies Him as the "Logos" or the Word. In Greek, "logos" has the double meaning of "thought" and "speech", so Christ is related to God as the word to the idea, the word being not merely a name for the idea, but the idea itself expressed. William Austin expressed it this way in "Meditation for Christmas Day":

"The name Word is most excellently given to our Saviour; for it expresses His nature in one, more than in any others. Therefore St. John, when he names the Person in the Trinity (1John 5:7) chooses rather to call Him Word than Son for word is a phrase more communicable than son. Son hath only teference to the Father that begot Him; but word may refer to him that conceives it; to him that speaks it; to that which is spoken by it; to the voice that it is clad in; and to the effects it raises in him that hears it.

So Christ, as He is the Word, not only refers to His Father that begot Him, and from whom He comes forth, but to all creatures that were made by Him; to the flesh that He took to clothe Him; and to the doctrine He brought and taught, and which lives yet in the hearts of all them that obediently do hear it. ...yet the Word is the intention uttered forth, as well as conceived within; ... For as the intention departs not from the mind when the word is uttered, so Christ, proceeding from the Father by eternal generation, and after here by birth and incarnation, remains still in Him and with Him in essence; as the intention, which is conceived and born in the mind, remains still with it and in it, though the word be spoken. He is therefore rightly called the Word, both by His coming from, and yet remaining still in, the Father."

"And the Word was with God" now continues the thought. "hn pros ton theon" as stated in the Greek text refers us back once again to the fact that the Greek "hn "tells us that the Word existed with the Father before creation. However, the English word "with" is not clear as it could be because the preposition "pros" which is in the accusative case denotes motion toward, or direction and not merely as being near or beside, but as a living union and communion sometimes even translated "face to face." John's statement is that the divine Word not only abode with the Father from all eternity, but was in the living, active relation of communion with Him and it shows His equality and the distinction of his person from Him. The Logos is not an impersonal principle but is to be regarded as living, intelligent, active personality.

Although the translation of the first verse of John up to this point clearly shows the eternality of the Word, the third proposition of this verse is somewhat controversial among heretical groups as regards the Deity of Christ. To further understand the issue, several terms and Greek rules will have to be clarified and defined. But before we do this let's translate the text literally:

"kai theos hn o logos" would literally say "and god was the word."

Several things come to mind as you look at the literal wording. First of all, there are no capital letters and for most Greek manuscripts there was no differentiation between upper and lower case letters as well as no punctuation marks. Most of the time this does not present a problem to the translator but in this situation it causes distress to those, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, who want to translate theos as "a god." Obviously to translate this section of the verse as "and the Word was a god", as the Watchtower Society chose to do, would change the meaning of the whole chapter significantly. To translate theos as "a god" then brings up the need to understand the use of the definite article the and the indefinite article a or an. Also is theos the subject of the sentence or is o logos. Let's see what the Greek grammar rules and the modern scholars have to say about these issues.

Regarding the use of articles, Ray Summers states on page 129 in "Essentials of New Testament Greek":

"The Greek had no indefinite article. The words tis and eis many times are close to the English use of the indefinite article "a" and "an." The Greek definite article o, h, to was much used and is tremendous importance in the interpretation of the the New Testament. ... The basic function of the Greek article is to identify. At this point an important differentiation should be observed. When the article is used with a construction, the thing emphasized is "identity"; when the article is not used, the thing emphasized is quality of character. ...The difference is clearly seen in the use of o theos and theos. o theos is used of the divine Person "God." theos is used (generally) of the divine character or essence of God. Thus "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God (ton theon) and the Word was divine (theos)" gives the sense. ... An extensive discussion of this usage is found in Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament." ( I will discuss the use of "divine" later on.)

Concerning articles, Spiros Zodhiates on pages 862 and 863 of The Complete Word Study New Testament with Parallel Greek states:

5. Anarthrous (an) refers to a word or group of words which appear without a definite article (o,e, to, the). Greek has no indefinite article "a" or "an" in English. Sometimes it is best to translate an anarthrous word by supplying "a" or "an" before it. In fact, due to reasons of English style or Greek idiom, the word "the" is even an appropriate translation in some cases. However, there are many times when supplying an article would be incorrect. Anarthrous constructions are most often intended to point out the quality of something.

24. The Definite Article (art) in Greek is sometimes translated with the English definite article "the." However, the function of the two is quite different. In English, the definite article serves merely to particularize, to refer to a particular object. In Greek, however, it serves to emphasize, in some way, the person or thing it modifies. Hence, in most cases, the definite article in Greek serves to identify: ... The term "articular" refers to a group of words which appear with a definite article ... The is perhaps no other part of Greek grammar where the Greek idiom differs so greatly from the English. For instance, an English grammarian would never place the definite article before a proper noun (e.g., the "Thomas"), though in Greek it is very common. Recognizing the significance of the presence or absence of the definite article requires the most intimate knowledge of the Greek language. Contrast the use of articular constructions with anarthrous constructions which refers to quality. ..."

To sum these rules up. it would be reasonable to say that the use of the definite article the in Greek would be used to emphasize the person or object it modifies and "articular" refers to the group of words where the article appears. Where there is no definite article (the) in the Greek, the words a or an may be inserted if appropriate and are used to emphasize quality, while this group of words without an article (the) is described as "anarthrous."

Now that we have covered the use of "articles", let's look at the sentence structure to determine which noun is the subject. Here is the Greek again:

kai theos hn o logos

Since both theos and logos are in the nominative case, either could be the subject since the primary use of the nominative case is that of the subject. Or a noun in the nominative case can designate an assertion about the subject and is called a predicate nominative. Just how can we determine whether theos or logos is the subject, well let's see what A. T. Robertson had to say:

"...The subject is made plain by the article and the predicate without it."

On page 178 of Green's Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament it says:

"206. Hence arises the general rule, that in the simple sentence the Subject takes the article, the Predicate omits it. The subject is definitely before the mind, the predicate generally denotes the class to which the subject is referred, or from which it is excluded."

Marvin R. Vincent in Word Studies in the New Testament on page 34 states:

"... theos , God, is the predicate and not the subject of the proposition. The subject must be the Word; for John is not trying to show who is God, but who is the Word."

Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns in the March, 1973 issue of the Journal of Biblical Literature written by Philip B. Harner makes this comment on page 75:

"We may begin by referring to the two general principles concerning predicate nouns that are usually accepted as axiomatic in NT study. The first is that a predicate noun in Greek is anarthrous when it indicates the category or class of which the subject is a particular example. ... The second principle is that a predicate noun is arthrous when it is interchangeable with the subject in the given context. ..."

The late Dr. E. C. Colwell formulated "Colwell's rule" which says:

"A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb."

Dr. Walter Martin in discussing John 1:1 reminds us:

"There can be no direct object following was (hn) since according to grammatical usage intransitive verbs take no objects but take instead predicate nominatives which refer back to the subject, in this case Word (Logos)."

There is little, if any, disagreement among translators that o logos is the subject and theos is the predicate nominative although I have given many reasons to support this assertion. But there is significant problems with how the sentence is translated. Let's review what we have so far:

kai theos hn o logos (Greek clause in question)

theos is the anarthrous predicate nominative.

hn is the verb.

o logos is the arthrous subject of the clause.

Several points need to be made at this time on how it cannot be translated. First of all, the clause cannot be translated "God was the Word" because this would contradict the previous statement which had distinguished God from the Word. The word God is used attributively to maintain the personal distinction between God and the Word, but makes the unity of essence and nature to follow the distinction of person and ascribes to the Word all the attributes of the divine essence. Nor could it be translated "The Word was divine." The Eerdmans Bible Commentary states on page 930:

"... this is an unwarranted weakening of the statement. As there is no article in the Greek (theos), the term must be taken as a predicate in which case it states the characteristics of the Word; but since it is a noun and not an adjective it must assert the Godhead of the Word. It involves not merely divinity but deity."

Earlier in this discussion, it was brought up that Jehovah's Witnesses and others who deny the Deity of Christ, have translated this clause "... and the Word was a god." This also cannot be correct because this would confuse the following five issues:

1. Even Jehovah can be called "a God" in the Bible, in passages using the exact same construction in Greek. In the NWT at Luke 20:38 it reads, "He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living ..."

2. Parallel texts used by the Watchtower as having the same Greek construction are noteworthy in that none of these listed gives the Greek noun a weaker or different meaning than if it had the definite article in front of it. (See Mark 6:49, John 8:44)

3. It is not necessary to translate nouns in such constructions with the indefinite "a" or "an" but is appropriate when the context requires it.

4. The context actually supports very strongly that "the Word was God" and not a secondary sub-god. The start of the verse tells us that the Word has always been and verse three tells us that the Word created everything.

5. By translating "a god", the Bible would be made to contradict itself. The Bible flatly denies over and over that there are any other real, true gods beside the one true God. Obviously the Word is clearly not a false god, then He must be the only true God, Jehovah.

To further substantiate point 5 above, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge points out, translators and translations which choose to render this phrase `a god' or `divine' are motivated by theological, not grammatical, considerations. The phrase `a god' is particularly objectionable, because it makes Christ a lesser god, which is polytheism, and contrary to the express declaration of Scripture elsewhere (Deut. 32:39). For clearly if Christ is `a god,' the he must be either a `true god' or `false god.' If `true,' we assert polytheism; if `false,' he is unworthy of credence."

So what have been the options discussed so far in the translation of kai theos hn o logos:

1. and God was the Word

2. and god was the word

3. and the Word was a god

4. and the Word was divine

5. and the Word was deity

6. and additional variations of the above

Considering the context before and after this clause, the Greek word order, the grammar rules, and the definition of the words involved, there is only one way to translate it and that is:

... and the Word was God.

William Barclay summed it up in his commentary on John on page 39 when he said:

"Finally John says that the word was God. This is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it is difficult because Greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from the way in which English speaks. When Greek uses a noun it almost always uses the definite article with it. The for God theos and definite article ho. When Greek speaks about God it does not simply say theos; it says ho theos. Now when Greek does not use the definite article with a noun that noun becomes much more like an adjective.

John did not say that the word was identical with God. He said that the word was theos -- without the definite article -- which means that the word was, we might say, of the very same character and quality and essence and being as God. When John said the word was God he was not saying that Jesus was identical with God; he was saying that Jesus was so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in him we perfectly see what God is like."

When this discussion started, I set out to prove five statements of truth. Just in verse 1 alone we have seen four of these statement dealt with. The fifth statement regarding that Jesus created ALL things is seen in the next three verses of John. Verse two says:

2. The same was in the beginning with God

Once again John re-emphasizes that the Word always was with God.

3. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.

Little doubt that John meant what he said. Jesus was the Creator and if anything was created, the Word did it.

The last verse we will consider says:

4. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

The power that creates and sustains life in the universe is the Word.

Although most of this paper has been spent discussing John 1:1, the context of verses two through four are relevant to the first verse. There can be very little doubt that the Apostle John, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was leading up to the climax of his book and needed to establish the Deity and the Humanity of Jesus.

As Thomas look in wonderment at the wounds in his Savior's body, he said it all in John 20:28:

"... My Lord and my God."