There are certain doctrines that are considered to be fundamental to the Christian faith. There is no room for compromise on these doctrines. While opinions may differ on lesser doctrines, the fundamental doctrines cannot be tampered with. These doctrines include the deity of Christ, the virgin birth of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the second coming of Christ, and salvation by faith in the finished work of Christ. They all revolve around the person and work of Christ. The doctrine we are about to study is the deity of Christ. By this, we mean that Christ was God.

Since this is one of the fundamental doctrines, it should come as no surprise that Satan has launched an all out attack on this doctrine (as well as the other fundamental doctrines). The attack on the deity of Christ comes from two fronts. On the one side we have the liberals and modernists who deny the miraculous. They see Jesus as only a good man. The virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the resurrection are all untrue. On the other side, we have the cults such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, who, as one of their basic tenets, deny the deity of Christ. To them, Jesus was the highest created being, but He is not God!

In answering the liberal attack, it is not so much debating Scripture as it is philosophy. The liberal denies the inerrancy of Scripture. Therefore, to use Scripture isn't of much use. Until the liberal is willing to admit to the authority of Scripture, he won't be convinced. He has already determined a priori that miracles cannot happen. As a result, he has concluded that the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, and the resurrection could not happen. Thus, the debate is philosophical, revolving around the question, "Can miracles happen?" It is not the purpose of this study to answer this question. C. S. Lewis, in his book Miracles, has done an excellent job arguing the case for miracles. For our purposes, we will assume that miracles can happen and that the Scriptures are inerrant. Thus, the Scriptures will be our guide.

This shifts the battle so that we must answer the cults. Peter tells us to "Be able to give an answer for the hope that is in you." It is not enough to believe in the deity of Christ, we should know why we believe it! The following is an examination of the Scriptures and why we believe in the deity of Christ. It is interesting to note that the evidence is so abundant that there are more than 50 passages of Scripture that we will mention.

In studying this topic we will use the outline that follows:

I. Direct References to the Deity of Christ

II. New Testament quotations of Old Testament passages that refer to Jehovah

and are applied to Jesus

III. New Testament quotations of Old Testament passages that refer to God

and are applied to Jesus

IV. Passages where worship is ascribed to Jesus

V. A Discussion of the necessity that our Savior be God

When a verse of Scripture is quoted, we will use the following conventions to denote which translation is being used. NWT-New World Translation (the official Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses), KJV-King James Version, NIV-New International Version, NASB-New American Standard Bible, The Greek text used is the Nestle-Aland Greek Text.

(KJV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(NIV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(NASB) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(NWT) In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

(Greek) en arch hn o logoV, kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon, kai qeoV hn o logoV.

We begin with this verse because it is the most straightforward declaration of the deity of Christ in the Bible. As such, the Jehovah's Witnesses have gone to great pains to re-interpret and even re-translate this verse to fit their doctrine. Every person in the Jehovah's Witness movement has been schooled in explaining this verse and making it fit into their heretical teachings. Therefore, it is important to understand their explanation of this verse and how to refute it.

As you will notice, every translation, except for the NWT, which is the official translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, translates John 1:1 as stating that Jesus is God. The translation is so simple and straightforward that all three translations other than the NWT are identical, which is quite a rarity. The truth is, every Greek scholar, even those who make no claims about Christianity, will readily admit that the Greek text in John 1:1 is stating that "the word (Jesus) was God," the same God mentioned in the middle of the verse. The text is not saying the "word was a god" as the NWT translates it. The only "scholars" who translate John 1:1 "a god" are those who are already disposed to the heretical doctrine of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Notice that I put the word "scholars" in quotation marks. This is because we don't even know who the translators of the NWT are. If you were to ask for the names of the translators and what qualifications they had, you will have a hard time finding out the names of the translators. The Watchtower Society does not want to give out this information. This is because their translators do not have the credentials for producing a legitimate translation. However, I can produce the names of the 70 translators of the KJV, the team of scholars who translated the NASB, and the group of scholars who translated the NIV. Also, I can produce their credentials showing that they were well qualified to translate the Greek text. The same cannot be said of the translators of the New World Translation.

It is interesting to note that the New Testament portion of the NWT didn't appear until 1950. So, even if "scholars" translated it, they did so many years after the doctrine espoused by the Jehovah's Witnesses was firmly entrenched in their writings. Thus, since they sponsored this translation, and since they had already been teaching that Jesus was not God for so many years, it makes their translation quite suspect. It seems that they translated the verse to fit their doctrine rather than translating the verse to fit what the text actually means.

I want to mention three reasons why the Greek text is correctly translated in all of the versions except the NWT. The first reason is contextual, the second grammatical, and the third semantic. First, the context demands that we translate this verse "the Word was God." The whole message of the Book of John is that Jesus is God. In John 5:17-18 He declares that He and His Father "are one" to which the Jews wanted to stone him because he was "making himself equal with God." In John 8:59 the Pharisees again sought to stone Jesus because he called himself the "I AM," a direct assertion of His deity. Then, in John 10:30-33, the Jews again wanted to stone him because "That thou, being a man, makest thyself God." Finally, in the climax of the book, Thomas exclaims, "My Lord and my God" while referring to Jesus.

The whole purpose of John's book is given in 20:30-31: "But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." John's purpose was twofold. First, to show that Jesus was the Christ (the coming Messiah promised in the Old Testament). Second, that Jesus was the Son of God. The term "Son of God" has a special meaning. In western thought, we use the term to denote "one who comes from another." Implied in our meaning is the fact that one is older than the other is. In eastern thought, however, the term "son" carried a different meaning. It referred to position, not creation. It carried the idea of containing the qualities of the Father. Notice how "son" is used in John 5:18. By calling God "Father," Jesus was making Himself equal to God. In our western thinking, we would not have made this association. In eastern thought, however, this is the association that is made. Thus, one of John's purposes was to show that Jesus was the "Son of God," which meant that Jesus was God!

In his gospel, John purposely selects seven miracles to prove that Jesus was God. He then purposely selects several incidents where Jesus' deity is called into question. In each of these incidents, the conclusion is that Jesus is God. Of course, the Pharisees, just like the JW's, rejected Jesus' claim. But any honest reader of the Gospel of John must admit that this is John's theme and purpose in writing his gospel.

The next reason for translating the verse "the Word was God" is grammatical. The JW's argue that it should be translated "a god" because the definite article ("the") is not used before qeoV ("God") in the last phrase. Thus, they suggest that the proper translation should be "a god." This either shows their ignorance of or willful distortion of the Greek language. The definite article is not used in the Greek the same way that we use the definite and indefinite articles in the English language. To begin, the Greek has no indefinite article. Second, the presence or absence of the definite article does NOT determine whether the English translation will have the definite article or not. There are instances when the Greek will have the definite article, but the English will not. There are also instances in which the Greek will not have the definite article and the English will have it. The point is that the two languages do not use the article in the same way.

In John 1:1, we have what is known as an anarthrous (without the article) construction. Notice the word order of the last phrase, kai qeoV hn o logoV. "God" comes first in the sentence and does not have the article. "Word" comes last and does have the article. In English, because "God" comes first and is before the verb, it would be the subject of the sentence because in English the subject and direct object are determined by word order. In Greek, however, word order is not as important. The subject and the direct object are determined by endings (inflections) added to the word. Thus, in Greek, the subject of the sentence can be placed anywhere in the sentence because its ending will alert the reader to the fact that it is the subject. Word order in the Greek is primarily for emphasis. If you want the subject emphasized, put it at the beginning. If you want the direct object emphasized, put it at the beginning of the sentence.

In this verse, however, there is a problem. Both "Word" (logoV) and "God" (qeoV) have the same endings even though one of them is the subject and the other the direct object. In the Greek, singular masculine subjects end in "os." Also, predicate nominatives (nouns that follow verbs of being like "is," "was," and "are") also have the "os" ending. So, in this phrase, since both words have the same ending, and since word order does not determine the subject of the sentence, how do you determine which word is the subject and which one is the predicate nominative? The answer is in the use of the article. The word with the article is the subject while the word without it is the predicate nominative. Notice that every translation makes "The Word" the subject of the sentence even though the word "God" comes first. This is because the article in front of "Word" lets you know that it is the subject of the sentence, not "God." Therefore, the lack of the article in front of "God" is a grammatical device to show that "God" is the predicate nominative of the sentence. It does not mean that you translate it "a god." Dana and Mantey in A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament state that "The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence" (p. 148) and then uses John 1:1 as an example. By the way, there are several places in the NWT where the article is absent from the word "god" but is still translated "God" by the JW's (John 1:18, 3:2, Rom. 9:5). Why didn't they translate it "a god" in those places? The reason is that in those instances it was referring to God the Father whom they consider to be Jehovah.

Finally, let's examine a semantic argument for translating the verse, "the Word was God." Throughout Scripture, when "theos" is used with the article, the emphasis is on God as a person, on his individuality. When "theos" is used without the article, the emphasis is on the quality or kind of being God is. To quote Dana and Mantey again, "The use of the articular and anarthrous constructions of qeoV is highly instructive. A study of the uses of the term as given in Moulton and Geden's Concordance convinces one that without the article qeoV signifies divine essence, while with the article divine personality is chiefly in view" (pp. 139-40). Thus, if the English word hadn't been weakened over the years, a proper translation of "theos" without the article would be "deity."

In conclusion, the context, the grammar, and the word usage all show that the proper translation is "the Word was God."

(KJV) But Jesus answered them, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

(NIV) Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

(NASB) But he answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working." For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God his own Father, making Himself equal with God.

(NWT) But he answered them: "My Father has kept working until now, and I keep working." On this account indeed, the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

(Greek) o de IhsouV apekrinato autois, O pathr mou ewV arti ergazetai, kagw ergazomai. dia oti ou monon eluen to sabbaton alla kai patera idion elegen ton qeon, ison eauton poiwn tw qew.

In verse 18 we are told that the "Jews began all the more to kill him" (NWT). Notice that the reason the Jews tried to kill Jesus was because he was "making himself equal with God" (NWT). They understood him to be declaring that he was equal with God the Father. There are several instances in which this happened (John 8:57-58, John 10:33). If the Jews were mistaken in what they understood Jesus to be saying, it seems that Jesus would have tried to correct their misunderstanding. However, Jesus never tries to correct their thinking because they understood him correctly. The whole point of these passages is to show that the Pharisees were not mistaken in what Jesus was claiming. However, they did not believe him, just as the Jehovah's Witnesses today do not believe him.

(KJV) Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

(NIV) "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

(NASB) Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM."

(NWT) Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence, I have

been."

(Greek) eipen autoiV IhsouV, Amhn amhn legw umin, prin Abraam genesqai egw eimi.

Here, Jesus equates himself with the "I AM" of Exodus 3:13-14. The "I AM," of course, is Jehovah God. The NWT blatantly mistranslates this verse on two fronts. First, the word "genesthai" means "born." The etymology of our English word "genealogy" can be traced to this word. Second, the phrase "ego eimi" is emphatic and in the present active. It can only be translated "I AM." The NWT treats it as if it were in the perfect tense. They purposely mistranslate the text. They cannot give any justification for translating "eimi" as "have been" instead of "AM." The only reason they have for "translating" it this way is to support their doctrine.

(KJV) "I and my Father are one." Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, "Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?" The Jews answered him, saying, "For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

(NIV) "I and my Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

(NASB) "I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

(NWT) "I and the Father are one." Once more the Jews lifted up stones to stone him. Jesus replied to them: "I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?" The Jews answered him: "We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god."

(Greek) egw kai o pathr en esmen. Ebastasan palin liqous oi Ioudaioi ina liqaswsin auton. apekriqh autois o IhsouV, Polla erga kala edeixa umin ek tou patroV. dia poion autwn ergon eme liqazete; apekriqhsan autw oi Ioudaioi, Peri kalou ergou ou liqazomen se alla peri blasfhmias, kai oti su anqrwpoV wn poieiV seauton qeon.

Here is another instance in which the Jews want to stone Jesus because He is making himself to be God. Jesus plainly states, "I and my Father are one." Jehovah's Witnesses explain this statement away by saying that Jesus was stating that He and the Father were "one in purpose." If, however, this is what Jesus was saying, then why did the Jews want to stone him? He would be claiming nothing greater than what many of the prophets had claimed before. The prophets claimed to be speaking for God and to be "one in purpose with Him." Then, too, the Jews themselves would claim to be "one in purpose" with God. They didn't want to stone Jesus because He was claiming to be one in purpose with God, they wanted to stone Him because He was claiming to be one with God.

Notice that Jesus does not try to correct their understanding. He doesn't say, "Wait a minute guys, you've got me all wrong. I'm only claiming to be one in purpose with God, just like you claim." No, their understanding was correct and as a result they reject Jesus.

"But," replies the JW, "Look at our translation, Jesus was only claiming to be 'a god.'" My response to their assertion is twofold. First, remember that the Greek and English use the definite article differently. Just because the article is not used before theos does not mean that it should be translated "a god" (see discussion on John 1:1). Consider Romans 9:5, John 1:18, 3:2. In these verses, the JW's translate theos "God" with a capital "G" even though the article is absent. Why don't they do it in this verse?

Second, if Jesus was claiming to be "a god," and if He and the Father are one, then does that mean that the Father is "a god?" As we stated earlier, Jesus was claiming more than just being "one in purpose" with God. He was claiming equality with God.

(KJV) And Thomas answered and said unto him, "My Lord and my God."

(NIV) Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

(NASB) Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God."

(NWT) In answer Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!"

(Greek) apekriqh QwmaV kai eipen autw, kurioV mou kai o qeoV mou.

After his resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples on several occasions. Thomas, however, was not with them during the first few appearances (John 20:24). Therefore, Thomas was skeptical when they told him that they had seen the Lord (v. 25). In fact, Thomas was so skeptical that he went on to say that "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe" (NWT). Eight days later, Thomas is with the disciples when Jesus appears to them (v. 26) and instructs Thomas to examine Him. He then tells Thomas to "stop being unbelieving but become believing" (NWT). In response, Thomas replies to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" Thomas expressly calls Jesus both his Lord and his God. Some may argue that Thomas was mistaken or that he was not directing his remarks to Jesus personally. The context, and Jesus' response, however, shows that he was not mistaken and that he was talking to Jesus. Notice how Jesus answers Thomas' affirmation of his deity. Jesus says, "Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe" (NWT).

Now, what particular belief was Jesus commending? The belief that He is Lord and God! Notice that Jesus does not deny Thomas' claim. On the contrary, He commends Thomas for believing, albeit it took a physical demonstration for him to believe. Jesus then goes on to commend all who believe that have not seen him. Now, is it mere belief in God that Jesus is commending? No! Thomas already believed in God. It is the particular belief, as Thomas so explicitly expressed, that Jesus was both Lord and God that Jesus is commending.

If Jesus was not God, it seems very strange that he did not correct Thomas' misconception of who he was, especially in the light of Matthew 4:10 where it states, "Then Jesus said to him: 'Go away, Satan! For it is written, "It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service."'" Only Jehovah God is to be worshipped. Therefore, Jesus, if He was not God, should have rebuked Thomas for worshipping him. In Revelation 22:8-9 John tried to worship an angel, but the angel rebuked him. In Acts 10:25-26 Cornelius bowed down to Peter, but Peter rebuked him. In Acts 14:13-16 the people in Lystra tried to offer sacrifices to Barnabas and Paul. Again, they rebuked the people because it would be wrong for them to accept worship from the people because worship is reserved for God only.

Now, if only God is to be worshipped, and if an angel rejects worship, and Peter rejects worship, and Paul and Barnabas reject worship, it seems strange that Jesus would allow himself to be called God, without rebuking Thomas3/4 unless, of course, He is God.

(KJV) These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

(NIV) They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings-and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.

(NASB) These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.

(NWT) These will battle with the Lamb, but, because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those called and chosen and faithful with him [will do so]."

(Greek) outoi meta tou arnion polemhsousin, kai to arnion nikhsei autouV, oti kurioV kuriwn estin kai basileus basilewn, kai oi met' autou klhtoi kai eklektoi kai pistoi.

Compare this verse to Psalm 136, which is a Psalm of praise to the Lord (Jehovah). In Psalm 136, Jehovah is called the "God of gods" and the "Lord of lords." In Revelation 17:14 Jesus is called the "Lord of lords." Both Jehovah and Jesus are called the "Lord of lords." There can only be one "Lord of lords." Therefore, Jesus and Jehovah must be one and the same.

(KJV) 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.

(NIV) For unto us a child is born,

to us a son is given,

and the government will be on his shoulders.

And he will be called

Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,

Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace

(NASB) For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;

And the government will rest on His shoulders;

And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father,

Prince of Peace.

(NWT) For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Everyone agrees that this is a prophecy of Jesus' birth. The "child born to us" is Jesus. Notice the titles given to Jesus, especially the titles "Mighty God" and "Eternal Father." The Jehovah's Witnesses may explain away "Mighty God" by saying that he is "a mighty god" (though this explanation disregards the true interpretation of the verse), but what can you do with "Eternal Father?" The "child given" is called the "Eternal Father." This is most definitely a designation of deity. It does not say "created Father" or even "eternal son," but "Eternal Father."

This prophecy was given as an encouragement to Israel. God was promising that in the future a ruler was coming who would sit on the throne of David forever and ever ruling in righteousness. This coming ruler was going to be God Himself.

(KJV) Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

(NIV) The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel-which means, "God with us."

(NASB) Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which translated means, "God with us."

(NWT) Look! The virgin will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will call his name Immanuel, which means, when translated, "With us is God."

(Greek) Idou h parqenos en gastri exei kai texetai uion,

o estin meqermhneuomenon Meq hmwn o qeoV.

This is the first of 47 Old Testament quotations that Matthew uses. It comes from Isaiah 7:14. To begin, the proper translation of Immanuel is "God with us," not "With us is God." In the Hebrew, "el" was a general term for "God" or "a god." Often it was combined with other words to form a name that carried a certain meaning. For example, the name Daniel, which has the "el" ending, means "God is my judge." Ezekiel means "God will strengthen." Immanuel means "God is with us." The emphasis is on God.

In this verse, we are told that when Jesus is born, God will be with us. JW's will explain this verse by saying that this verse is promising that Jehovah God would be with this child in a special sense in which he was not with others. It does not mean that he is actually God.

This explanation, however, does not do justice to what Matthew is trying to say. Notice that this virgin born son will "save His people from their sin." The only person who can forgive sins is God (Mk. 2:7). Jesus has the power to forgive sins and to save from sin. In Isaiah 43:3, 11 we read that "I am Jehovah your God, the Holy One of Israel your Savior" and "I-I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior" (NWT). Throughout Scripture Jesus is presented as the Savior. Isaiah tells us that the only Savior is Jehovah. Therefore, Jesus must be Jehovah.

(KJV) For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

(NIV) For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.

(NASB) For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.

(NWT) Because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.

(Greek) oti en autw katoikei pan to plhrwma thV qeothtoV swmatikwV,

Notice that even the NWT states that in Jesus "the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily." What is meant by "fullness of the divine quality?" To understand this phrase, it will be helpful to have a cursory understanding of Gnosticism. The Gnostics were a group of 1st and 2nd century heretics whose central teaching was that spirit is entirely good and matter is entirely evil. They claimed to have "special knowledge." They taught that there was one good, pure spirit and from Him flowed several lesser spirits. These lesser emanations ultimately produced the Jehovah of the Old Testament. This accounts for the evil and sin found in the Old Testament and for how God could command war. Evil couldn't come directly from this pure spirit, but it could come from a lesser spirit. For Gnostics, "fullness" was a technical term that represented "the sum of the supernatural forces controlling the fate of people."

In Colossians, Paul is probably refuting an early form of Gnosticism. He refutes their use of the word "fullness" and applies it to Jesus in 1:19 and 2:9. Paul uses the phrase to mean the "totality of God with all His powers and attributes." The word plhrwma (plaroma) means fullness, not just a part or division. Jesus had all the attributes of Deity, not just some of them. Notice that these attributes "dwell" in Him. The word "dwell" is the Greek word katoikew and means "to settle down, be at home." The attributes of Deity were "at home" in Jesus because they had always been there. That is why in Philippians 2:6 (a verse we will discuss later) Paul can say that Jesus, "although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped." He did not have to "grasp for it" because it was already "at home" in Him.

(KJV) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.

(NIV) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

(NASB) And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.

(NWT) He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.

(Greek) oV estin eikwn tou qeou touaoratou, prwtotokoV, pashs ktisewV

Notice that Jesus is the "image" (Gk. eikon) of God. This is the word from which we get our word "icon." This word means that He is an exact representation of God. In Hebrews 1:3 we read that "He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature."

In verse 16 we find that "all things were created by Him and for Him." This is another attestation of His deity. In Genesis 1:1 we find that it was God who created all things. The JW's will respond by saying that God created Jesus as the highest created being and that God then created the world through Jesus. In this way, the Bible is correct when it says "God created" or "Jesus created." However, notice that creation was for Jesus, not for God the Father. Yet, we know that God created all things for Himself. So Jesus must be God.

Note also that it doesn't say Jesus created all things except Himself. The point of the passage is that every created thing, visible, invisible was created by Jesus.

In verse 15 we have a word that the JW's love to point at to try to prove that Jesus is not God. It is the word "first-born." They point to this word and say, "See, Jesus was the first-born of all creation. He was the first thing created and then everything else came after." Again, this shows their ignorance of the Greek language and also of eastern word usage. "First-born" refers to position, not chronology. The designation "first-born" (Gk. prototokos) is a title informing us that Jesus, as the God-man, has the privileges of the first-born with God the Father even though He was not the first man born chronologically. If Paul had wanted to say that Jesus was the "first created" thing, he would have used a different Greek word-protoktistos. For example, Jacob had the position of the first-born, even though Esau was the first born chronologically. Jacob received all of the rights and privileges normally granted to the first born because he obtained the position of the first born. Joseph, too, though not the first born chronologically, received the rights and privileges of the first born. .

Secondly, Paul is using the designation "first-born" to refer to the fact that Jesus is the first person to be resurrected with a glorified body. Notice 1:18 where it says, "He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything." Here we have Paul's meaning for "first-born." First, Jesus was the first resurrected from the dead with a glorified body. Second, Jesus would have "first place in everything" (pre-eminent position).

Thus, the designation first born deals with Christ's position and privileges, not with His genealogy. John calls Jesus the "only begotten" (monogeneV). If He is the "only begotten" how could He also be the "First begotten?" He couldn't! Thus, in eastern thought, "first-born" has nothing to do with chronology, but everything to do with position. We conclude that "first-born" is referring to the resurrection and position of Christ, not the genealogy of Christ.

(KJV) "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending," saith the Lord, "which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

(NIV) "I am the Alpha and Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

(NASB) "I am the Alpha and Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

(NWT) "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says Jehovah God, "the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty."

(Greek) Egw eimi to Alfa kai to W, legei kurioV o qeoV, o wn kai o hn kai o ercomenoV, o pantokratwr.

The Book of Revelation, by its own admission, is "The Revelation of Jesus Christ." It tells us who Christ is and what He is going to do in the future. In 1:8, the NWT concedes the fact that the "Alpha and Omega" is Jehovah. JW's also realize that the person being spoken about in verses 4-7 is Jesus. Therefore, JW's will insist that the person speaking in verse 8 (Jehovah) is not the same as the person mentioned in verse 7 who "is coming in the clouds." However, upon closer examination, we will see that the Alpha and Omega is referring to Jesus Christ.

In Revelation 1:9-18, John gives a description of Jesus sitting on the throne. We know that it is Jesus because in verse 13 he is called the "son of man." Notice that in verse 17 he is called the "first and the last."

Consider also Revelation 22:13 where we read "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Who is saying this? If you will read down to 22:16 you will see that it is Jesus: "I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches." Jesus is here called the Alpha and Omega. In 1:8 Jehovah is called the Alpha and Omega. Therefore, Jesus must be Jehovah!

(KJV) But unto the Son he saith, "thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."

(NIV) But about the Son he says,

"Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever,

and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom."

(NASB) But of the Son he says,

"Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever,

And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His Kingdom."

(NWT) But with reference to the Son: "God is your throne forever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness."

(Greek) proV de ton uion,

Next to John 1:1, Hebrews 1:6-8 is probably the single best declaration in the Bible of Jesus' deity. Notice that all of the translations, except the NWT, translate the verse, "Thy throne, O God." Of course, this contradicts JW teaching so they have twisted their translation to say, "God is your throne forever." On the surface, you could finagle grammatical rules in order to arrive at their translation. However, just because a translation may be technically acceptable, does not mean that it is correct. There are some verses that could be translated in more than one way, but only one translation is the correct translation. The truth is, all Greek scholars will translate this verse, "Thy throne, O God," thus stating that Jesus is God. However, for sake of argument, I will concede that technically, though not accurately, the verse could be taken the way that the NWT translates it.

But, even giving them this point, the translation would still be wrong for another reason. This verse is a quotation of Psalm 45:6. In order to be consistent, the JW's have also twisted the translation there so that the reading is identical to here. However, this twisting cannot be explained in the Hebrew. The only way to accurately translate Psalm 45:6 in the Hebrew is "Thy throne, O God." You may argue that the Greek can be translated "God is thy throne," but you can't argue that the Hebrew can be translated this way. The Hebrew will not allow for the translation that they have given it. Therefore, since the writer of Hebrews is quoting Psalm 45:6, and since the only way to translate it is "Thy throne, O God," then it naturally follows that the correct translation of Hebrews 1:8 is "Thy throne, O God."

Consider also verse 6, which states in the NWT, "But when he again brings his First-born into the inhabited earth, he says: 'And let all God's angels worship him.'" Notice that all of God's angels are going to worship the Son. Worship, as we mentioned earlier, is reserved only for God. Here we have the angels worshipping the Son. Therefore, the Son must be God. That is why he goes on to say in verse 8, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever."

(KJV) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.

(NIV) Who, being in very nature God,

did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

(NASB) who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped.

(NWT) who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.

(Greek) os en morfh qeou uparcwn ouc arpagmon hghsato to einai isa qew

To begin, notice that Jesus was "existing in God's form" (NWT). You can't exist in God's form unless you are God. The idea here is that he had all of the qualities and attributes of God.

The word "arpagmon" means "to retain with an eager grasp." The idea behind this passage is that Jesus did not need to "grasp at" being God because He was already God. You don't have to try to get something you already have.

The NWT has really bungled this translation. They have translated "arpagmon" either as an infinitive or as if it were in the dative case. The form of the word, however, is in the accusative case, meaning it is the direct object. Again, they have showed their misunderstanding of the Greek language.

(KJV) Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

(NIV) Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

(NASB) Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

(NWT) Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own [Son].

(Greek) prosecete eautoiV kai panti tw poimniw en w umaV to pneuma to agion eqeto episkopous, poimainein thn ekklasian tou qeou, hn periepoihsato dia tou aimatoV tou idiou.

Here, we see that it was God who purchased the church with "his own blood." Of course, it was Jesus who shed His blood. Therefore, the JW's had to re-translate this verse to make the blood belong to His son. Notice that the word "son" is in brackets in the NWT. This is because it is not in the Greek. The NWT "translators" had to supply the word "son" in order to change the text to fit their doctrine.

The truth is, any first semester Greek student could translate the last phrase correctly-"his own blood." The phrase is an adjectival phrase in what is called the attributive position. Basically, you have a noun with the article and the adjective with the article all in the same case. In these instances, you will translate the phrase as adjectival, in this case, "his own blood." This is the only translation possible unless you add the word "son."

(KJV) Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

(NIV) There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.

(NASB) Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.

(NWT) Now there are varieties of gifts, but there is the same spirit; and there are varieties of ministries, and yet there is the same Lord; and there are varieties of operations, and yet it is the same God who performs all the operations in all persons.

(Greek) DiaireseiV de carismatwn eisin, to de auto pneuma kai diaireseiVdiskoniwn eisin, kai o autoV kurioV kai diaireseiV energhmatwn eisin, o de autoV qeoV, o energwn ta panta en pasin.

Consider the parallel construction of these three verses. The point is that the Spirit, the Lord, and God are one in the same. There are "varieties" of gifts, ministries, and effects, but the Spirit, Lord, and God are the "same."

(KJV) Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

(NIV) Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

(NASB) whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

(NWT) to whom the forefathers belong and from whom Christ [sprang] according to the flesh: God, who is over all, [be] blessed forever. Amen

(Greek) wn oi petraV, kai ex wn o CristoV to kata sarka. o wn epi pantwn qeoV euloghtoV eiV touV aiwnaV, amhn.

As you can see by examining the translations, there is some question about how to translate the last phrase. Notice, however, the NIV translation. If it is correct, then this ranks alongside John 1:1 and Hebrews 1:6-8 as the clearest declaration of the deity of Christ. Of course, the JW's will argue for their translation, being as it is from the great unknown "scholars." It is interesting to note that in this verse "God" does not have the article and yet the NWT translates it "God." If you will remember, they didn't do this in John 1:1 for obvious reasons.

These are some of the best passages to use with Jehovah's Witnesses. In each case they must admit that the OT passage referred to is speaking of Jehovah God. The corresponding NT passage is quotes the OT passage and applies that passage to Jesus. The inference is that Jesus is Jehovah.

In Isaiah, the voice in the wilderness is preparing the way of Jehovah. In the three NT passages cited above, John the Baptist is equated with the forerunner preparing the way of Jehovah. Now, who is John preparing the way for in the gospels? Jesus! Therefore, Jesus must be Jehovah.

In Isaiah, it is Jehovah who is called the King of Israel, the redeemer, the Lord Almighty, and the first and the last. It also states that apart from Jehovah, there is no God. Compare this to Revelation 1:17 and 17:14 where Jesus is called the First and the Last and the King of Kings. Consider also all of the verses where Jesus is mentioned as our Redeemer and Savior. Logic demands that if Jehovah is the only God, the only Savior, the First and Last, and the King of kings, then Jesus and Jehovah must be one and the same.

In Joel we are told that "whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord (Jehovah), shall be delivered." This verse is quoted by Paul in Romans 10:13. It is obvious from Paul's context that the Lord he is talking about is Jesus. Add to this the fact that Acts 4:12 reminds us that "there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." The name Luke is talking about in Acts is Jesus. Does this mean that there is not salvation in the name Jehovah? It would, if Jesus and Jehovah were not one and the same. But since they are the same, salvation is through Jesus, who is also Jehovah!

We discussed these verses earlier. In the Greek text, it is obvious that Jesus is claiming to be the "I AM" of the Old Testament. That is why the Jews wanted to kill him. They considered this to be blasphemy. If he were only saying that he existed before Abraham then that would not be a reason to want to kill him. If Jesus had told them that he was an angel (as the JW's teach) or that he was one of the patriarchs raised from the dead, they may have thought that he was crazy, but they wouldn't have tried to kill him. The Jews believed in angels and in the resurrection. The reason they tried to kill him was because he claimed to be more than a prophet or angel, He claimed to be God!

Notice that Isaiah's prophecy is applied to this incident in the life of Jesus. The interesting thing to note is the word "his" in John 12:41 where we read that "Isaiah, when he saw his glory." A careful examination will show that the word "his" is referring to Jesus. The antecedent to "his" is Jesus in verse 37. Thus, when Isaiah saw Jehovah in Isaiah 6, he was also looking at Jesus!

We have touched on this verse before. In Isaiah, Jehovah is called the first and the last. In the verses mentioned in Revelation, Jesus is called the First and the Last. Thus, Jesus must be Jehovah.

In Isaiah we see that there is "no other God" except Jehovah and that unto Him "every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." In Romans 14:10-11 we are told that we will be judged by Christ and bow to Him. In Philippians 2:10, we are told that "at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow and tongue confess that Jesus is Lord." Again, Jesus and Jehovah are equated with each other.

In Zechariah, we are told that Jehovah will be king over all the earth. In these verses in Revelation, we are told that Jesus is King of kings. There can be only one "King of kings." Again, Jesus and Jehovah are seen to be one and the same.

Peter tells us to "Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts." This is a direct allusion to Isaiah 8:13. However, the context in Peter is actually referring to the Jesus. In fact, most Greek texts have the word "Christ" not "God" in this verse. Thus, the verse would read, "Sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts."

Zechariah 12:10 speaks of the one "whom they have pierced." This, of course, is referring to Jesus in the New Testament who was "pierced" for our sins. In Zechariah, the one pierced is Jehovah. Going back in the context to 12:4 where we see that it is the Jehovah who is the one speaking sees this. Thus, it is Jehovah is pierced!

In Mark, we have a very interesting passage. Jesus asks His detractors, "If David calls him (the Messiah) Lord, how is he also his Son?" The point of the passage is that the Lord had to become flesh. He had to become the God-man. That is why David can call the Messiah both Lord and son.

Here God is called the Savior. Later, in Luke 2:11, Jesus is called the Savior. Yet, in Isaiah, God is the Savior, the only savior. Therefore, Jesus and Jehovah, since they are both called Savior, must be the same.

Again, we mentioned this passage earlier. The point is that the Son is called "God" by the Father. Earlier, in Hebrews 1:6, the angels are commanded to worship the son. Remember, only God is to be worshipped. If the angels are commanded to worship the son, then the son must be God!

Numerous passages teach us that only God is to be worshipped. Consider Matthew 4:10, Revelation 22:8-9, Acts. 14:14-15, 10:25-26. In each of these verses, creatures reject worship because worship is reserved for God. In the following verses, we find that Jesus is worshipped, accepts this worship, and does not make any attempt to deflect this worship to God. So, either this was blasphemy on Jesus' part or Jesus is God.

"And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him."

One final argument for the deity of Christ is the truth that our Savior had to be God. A mere angel could not have paid the necessary penalty required to redeem us. Man is a sinner. The penalty for sin against an infinite God is an infinite penalty. If a person dies without trusting Christ as Savior, then that person must pay an infinite penalty. The only way a finite being like man can pay this penalty is to pay it eternally. That is why hell is eternal.

The penalty for sin is death. "For the wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23). Death, in its purest form, means "separation." Man, by virtue of being a sinner, is separated from God. If he dies in this condition, the separation becomes eternal. In fact, man cannot pay an infinite penalty, only God can.

Our Savior had to pay this infinite penalty for us. The only way that this could be done would be for the Savior to have the ability to pay an infinite penalty for every human being. A mere mortal could not pay this penalty. A mere angel could not pay this penalty. Only an infinite God could pay this penalty. Jesus, being both God and man, was able to pay the infinite penalty for all men. As God, He was infinite in capacity. Thus, He had the "capacity" to suffer in three hours on the cross what it would take you and I an eternity to suffer in hell. Only God could have the capacity to pay an infinite penalty for all men. That is why our Savior had to be God. That is why Jesus, since He is our Savior, had to be God.

When Jesus died on the cross, for the first time in eternity, God the Father turned His back on God the Son. That is why Jesus cried out, "My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?" At that moment on the cross, Jesus was suffering our eternal punishment. But, praise God, He paid the penalty in full. That is why He cried out, "It is finished." In the Greek, this was a financial term and meant, "paid in full." Jesus, being God, was able to pay an infinite penalty for all of mankind when He died on the cross. Realize that anyone less than God could not have paid the penalty. No angel or man could have done this. They may have been willing to do it, but they wouldn't have had the ability to do it.

Therefore, salvation from sin, when rightly understood, requires that our Savior be not only man, but also God!