Did Thomas’ Statement Really meant Calling Jesus God?
As we all know, Trinitarians always like to argue and defend Their own flawed position using scripture like John 20:28 when it comes to the Trinity & Deity Of Christ. This verse is ambiguous to a certain extent but with context, It is fully understandable and accurately not defending nor supporting any trinitarian concept. Before Reaching Thomas’ statement in verse 28, we see that Christ has risen from the dead and has appeared to a few disciples after his resurrection before Thomas. Now, In Thomas scenario, we see that he was doubting that christ has risen from the dead!(See John 20:25) But When Christ had finally appeared to him in v26-27, Leading up to the special moment of the entire Claim that Trinitarians often use in support of the Trinity or Jesus’ divinity(In The High sense) we see Thomas answering Jesus, “My Lord and My God”( The Lord of me and The God of Me) due to the astonishing momment that Christ has appeared to Thomas who was doubting his resurrection. A lot of Trinitarians fail to realize that this is an exclamatory doxology! much like saying "hallelujah!” or "praise the Lord!" when he saw the resurrected Christ. Thomas’ declaration acted as an answer to Jesus’ statement that he should believe, it seems reasonable to me. Furthermore, Jesus himself showed by his answer (John 20:29) that he understood Thomas’ statement as an admission to him that Thomas now believed that Jesus had been resurrected. Instead of focusing on one verse without the context we should acknowledge the entire purpose of this passage which was in fact summarized in John 20:31. John summarizes up the entire Gospel’s purpose in v31, The acknowledgment of Jesus as Christ and Son of God and the resulting everlasting life come together as major themes. Focusing on the message that has been mentioned several times before: God wants people to believe he sent his Son so that they may live forever.
In His(John) concluding statement, John makes clear that in order to “have life”, his readers(us) need to know Jesus for who he is (rather than for what he is): the Christ and the Son of God. If John had really meant Thomas to set the example and to pronounce that this Christ is now by every reader to be recognized as “my God”, it is difficult to explain why this is not reflected in what is evidently John’s own final christological pronouncement. It is commonly known for trinitarians to say, “Probably because the title ‘God’ for Jesus was relatively recent, John preferred in his statement of purpose to use the more traditional ‘Son of God’; but his approval of the ‘Lord and God’ profession shows how he understood ‘Son of God.’” But obviously this does not make sense: not the author’s but the audience’s(us) understanding is what matters here. Their prospect of eternal life depends on a proper knowledge of who Jesus is. If John in stating his intentions saw no reason to instill upon his readers that Jesus was in fact their God, some caution as to the importance of Thomas’ exclamation is to be recommended.
John 20:17
Let’s also not forget what Christ as stated before the astonishing moment revealing himself to Thomas. Thomas addresses the risen Christ as “my God” (*ὁ θεός µου*). Earlier within the chapter, Jesus himself had used the same phrase and applied it to the Father (20:17):
ἀναβαίνω πρὸς τὸν πατέρα µου καὶ πατέρα ὑµῶν καὶ θεόν µου καὶ θεὸν ὑµῶν.
“I am going to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.”
Given the fact that the risen Jesus himself refers to the Father as his God as well as his disciples’ God, it would be incongruous if the disciple Thomas would now be the one to suddenly shift the object of worship from the Father to the Son, or to somehow merge the two. You can't have it both ways. If Thomas' statement can only mean that Jesus is highly superior to Thomas in all respects, then Jesus' repeated and even clearer statements that the Father is HIS God can only mean that the Father is superior to Jesus in all respects. If Thomas really understood that Jesus was equally God, it is certainly blasphemous for John and other inspired Bible writers to turn around and call the Father the God of the Christ.
In understanding 20:28 we should, perhaps, concentrate not so much on the word θεός but rather on the person who says it and the specifics of his previous interactions with Jesus. In the latest instance before chapter 20, we hear of Thomas during the last night the disciples have the opportunity to listen to their master before his trial and death. Jesus speaks at great length during their last supper together (starting in chapter 13). Among the topics of these final lessons are Jesus’ relationship with the Father. In chapter 14 he says (14:1 ESV): “Believe in God; believe also in me.” These words clearly imply that in order to believe in God, it is required to believe in the one who is distinct yet fully in unison with the Father. Jesus subsequently announces he will go to the Father, and that his disciples will eventually follow him. In response,
Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”John 14:5–7 ESV
There is no further mention of Thomas, but in the subsequent verse, the narrator(John) mentions another disciple’s misunderstanding, which makes him a second case to depict a puzzlement that is probably general. As elsewhere, Jesus’ friends need time to process all they learn, and much of it is only perceived after Jesus’ resurrection. This brings us back to chapter 20. Since it is to none other than Thomas that Jesus had said: “No one comes to the Father except through me” (14:6), it may very well be that these words come back to Thomas at the moment he sees his master resurrected.
Saying “My Lord and my God” to the Son would in concordance with 14:6 amount to addressing the Father through the Son. Thus, Thomas was honoring the Father by honoring the Son as the sole person who makes the Father both known and accessible. Rather than being the first to address Jesus as God, Thomas may here be remembered as the first disciple who put Jesus’ role as sole mediator – as the unique interface between man and God – to good use. Thomas already believed, as did Jesus, that the Father was his God. He now finally showed faith also in Jesus (14:1) by recognizing him as the necessary and only intermediary.
Something else to note here is the behaviour of the apostles. Here are pious Jews who believe themselves to be in the literal presence of HaShem himself ,not a representative mind you, according to our Trinitarian and Modalists colleagues ,and yet there is no record in the account of anyone bowing down or showing the kind of reverence that one would expect of JEHOVAH'S devotees on such an occasion.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, Scripture provides multiple examples of the apostles and others worshiping Jesus in ways that affirm His divine status. There are numerous instances where Jesus receives worship, a practice reserved exclusively for God in Jewish tradition (Matthew 28:9, Matthew 28:17, Luke 24:52, Revelation 5:13-14). These acts of worship demonstrate that Jesus was acknowledged and treated as divine by His followers. Such behavior would be blasphemous for devout Jews unless they truly believed Jesus was God.
DeleteIf Jesus were not God and merely a representative or a created being, He would have been obligated to reject worship, as other figures in Scripture do:
* Revelation 22:8-9: When John attempted to worship an angel, the angel stopped him, saying, “Worship God.”
* Acts 10:25-26: When Cornelius bowed before Peter, Peter explicitly told him, “Stand up; I am only a man myself.”
In contrast, Jesus not only accepts worship but also commends the faith of those who worship Him, such as in the case of Thomas (John 20:28-29).
The claim that the apostles did not show the expected reverence assumes that reverence must always take the form of bowing or prostration. However, reverence toward God in the Bible is often expressed through obedience, faith, and worship. The apostles left everything to follow Jesus (Luke 5:11). Their willingness to abandon their livelihoods and later suffer persecution and martyrdom for Him is a profound act of reverence. The apostles consistently proclaimed Jesus as the divine Son of God. For example, Peter declared, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16), and Paul referred to Jesus as “our great God and Savior” (Titus 2:13). The behavior of the apostles after the resurrection, including their boldness and willingness to die for their testimony, reflects their deep conviction that Jesus is Lord and God.
For devout Jews, worshiping a human being would be a grievous sin. If the apostles did not believe Jesus was God, their acts of worship would be inexplicable. The apostles' reverence, expressed through worship and obedience, aligns with their belief in Jesus' divine identity. The Jewish Shema declares, “The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4), and yet the apostles, all devout Jews, worshiped Jesus without hesitation. This strongly indicates that they understood Jesus to be included within the identity of the one God of Israel.
While explicit descriptions of prostration may not always be present, the apostles’ actions demonstrate ultimate reverence. Peter fell at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!” This echoes the reverence shown to God in the Old Testament (e.g., Isaiah 6:5). Peter, James, and John fell face down when they saw Jesus transfigured and heard the voice of the Father.
(2/2)
ReplyDeleteThe title "Son of God" in John’s Gospel inherently carries divine connotations. For example, John 5:18 explains that when Jesus called God his Father, he was "making himself equal with God." John’s use of "Son of God" underscores Jesus’ unique relationship with the Father, not a lesser status. John 20:31 states, "These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." This does not exclude Jesus’ divinity. In fact, it highlights his unique role in granting eternal life—something only God can do (John 10:28, 17:2).
The article argues that Thomas could not have called Jesus God because Jesus referred to the Father as "My God" in John 20:17. However, this argument misunderstands orthodox Christology. In His human nature, Jesus, the incarnate Word, prays to and submits to the Father as His God (cf. Philippians 2:6-8). Simultaneously, as the divine Son, Jesus is fully God, co-equal with the Father (cf. John 1:1, 10:30). Thomas' confession reflects this dual reality.
Trinitarianism does not assert that Jesus is the Father. Rather, it teaches that the Son, in his role as mediator, has a distinct relationship with the Father. Jesus calling the Father "my God" aligns with his role as the incarnate Son and mediator, not with a denial of his divinity. The Son's submission to the Father does not imply inequality in essence. The Trinity affirms one divine essence shared equally by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while recognizing distinct roles and relations.
The phrase "my God and my Lord" (Greek: ho theos mou kai ho kurios mou) is reminiscent of Psalm 35:23, where these terms are used to address Yahweh. By applying this language to Jesus, Thomas identifies Jesus as Yahweh incarnate, affirming His divinity.
John’s Gospel begins with a high Christological statement: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). This theme culminates in Thomas' confession, which reinforces the Gospel's purpose:
"These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name" (John 20:31).
Thomas’ confession harmonizes with this purpose, affirming both Jesus’ Messiahship and His divine identity.
Early Church Fathers consistently interpreted John 20:28 as a declaration of Jesus’ deity. For example, Augustine states in De Trinitate:
“Thomas saw and touched the man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched.”
This understanding reflects the unanimous belief of the early Church in Jesus' full divinity and humanity.
The interpretation that Thomas was addressing the Father or making an exclamation of surprise was associated with heretical groups like the Socinians and was condemned by the early Church.
In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is referred to as κύριος (Lord) and θεός (God) in numerous instances, but according to Arians these do not mean anything special, it’s not a big deal, right? They argue that κύριος does not necessarily refer to Adonai, and thus ultimately to Yahweh, and that θεός may also have a more general meaning. But is this really what the apostles meant by using these terms?
ReplyDeleteIn Ancient Greek, to convey "master" or "lord" in non-divine sense while avoiding the connotations of κύριος (kyrios), you could use:
1. δεσπότης (despotes) - This term generally means "master" or "lord" in the sense of a ruler or one with authority over a household or dependents. While it can have hierarchical connotations, it is less tied to divinity in classical contexts.
2. ἄναξ (anax) - This is a poetic or noble term often translated as "lord" or "master." It has heroic or noble associations, especially in Homeric contexts.
3. ἄρχων (archon) - Meaning "ruler" or "chief," this term could be used for someone with authority in a civic or administrative role.
4. ἡγεμών (hēgemṓn): Meaning "leader" or "governor," though it often denoted a political or military leader rather than a personal "lord" or "master."
The best choice depends on the context and the specific nuances you want to convey about the relationship or setting. δεσπότης is probably the closest neutral alternative in most general uses.
Question: if the apostles wanted to avoid Christ being understood as a divine Lord in the proper sense, and wanted to avoid the YHWH-Adonai association, why didn't they use one of these terms instead of κύριος?
But likewise, the apostles repeatedly call Christ θεός, and instead, numerous expressions would have been available if they wanted to express that he was partly divine, godlike, kind of god:
1. θεῖος (theios): "Divine," "godlike," or "of the gods." Often used adjectivally to describe something extraordinary, inspired, or blessed by the gods, such as divine wisdom (θεῖα σοφία). It does not imply the being is a full deity. This term works well for attributing divine qualities without implying the individual is a full god.
2. ἡμίθεος (hemitheos): "Demigod," literally "half-god. Used for mythological figures, typically heroes or mortals with divine parentage or divine favor. For example, Heracles is referred to as a ἡμίθεος. This explicitly signals a partial divinity or divine favor, emphasizing a lower status than a full deity.
3. ἥρως (hērōs): "Hero," a mortal of exceptional ability, often regarded as semi-divine. Heroes like Achilles or Odysseus were sometimes venerated and associated with divine qualities. While primarily mortal, ἥρως carries connotations of extraordinary, divine-like qualities.
4. θεϊκός / θεϊνός (theïkos / theinos): "Godlike," "pertaining to a god." These adjectival forms emphasize qualities that resemble those of a deity but do not imply full divinity. For example, extraordinary beauty or wisdom could be described as θεϊκή. Flexible for metaphorical or partial divine associations.
5. θεώτερος (theōteros): "More divine." Comparative form, used to imply that someone or something is more divine or godlike than others, but not absolutely divine. It highlights relative, rather than absolute, divinity.
6. δαίμων (daimōn): Originally referred to a spirit or lesser deity, often a personal or local divine force. Associated with a range of supernatural beings, not inherently good or evil. In later usage, particularly in Christian contexts, it took on a negative connotation (as "demon"), but in classical texts, it was more neutral. Suitable for referring to a lower-order divine being or a guiding force without implying supreme authority.
Question: if the apostles really wanted to avoid understanding Christ as God in the absolute, monadic sense, then why didn't they use one of the terms instead of θεός?
The Greek phrase εἶπεν αὐτῷ (“he said to him”) indicates that Thomas is addressing Jesus directly. The nominative forms ὁ κύριός μου (“my Lord”) and ὁ θεός μου (“my God”) function as vocative forms in Koine Greek. Thomas’s words are not directed to the Father but directly to Jesus. The phrase εἶπεν αὐτῷ (“he said TO HIM”, not not "to them", not one for Christ, the other for some kind of "Jehovah") confirms that Thomas is speaking ONLY to one person, to Christ, not the Father. The possessive pronoun μου (“my”) emphasizes Thomas’s personal recognition of Jesus as both Lord and God.
ReplyDeleteIn first-century Jewish culture, invoking God's name flippantly, as in “Oh my God!” would constitute blasphemy (Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 24:16). Thomas, a devout Jew, would not utter such an exclamation. Jesus does not rebuke Thomas for blasphemy or a mistaken declaration. Instead, He commends Thomas’s belief: "Because you have seen me, you have believed" (John 20:29). This affirmation confirms that Thomas’s words were a true confession of faith. The phrase “my God” is used over 100 times in the Bible, and in every instance, it refers to YHWH, the one true God of Israel (e.g. Psalm 35:23, Revelation 4:11). For a pious Jew like Thomas to call Jesus "my God" signifies his recognition of Jesus as fully divine. In John 20:28, Thomas applies this language directly to Jesus, aligning with the Gospel's high Christology.
In Psalm 35:23, the Hebrew phrase אֱלֹהַ֖י וַאדֹנָ֣י (’ĕlōhay wa-’ăḏōnay, "My God and my Lord") demonstrates a close parallel to the Peshitta's rendering of John 20:28. The Psalmist's invocation of God combines two divine titles, indicating both a personal relationship ("my God") and reverence for God’s sovereign authority ("my Lord"). The Targum to this verse also uses אֱלֹהַי וּמָרֵי (Ĕlohāy ū-Mārēy), confirming the use of these terms in a similar liturgical or devotional context. The Peshitta’s Aramaic translation of John 20:28 reads: ܡܳܪܝ ܘܰܐܠܳܗܝ (Mari w-Alahi), which directly translates to "My Lord and my God." Psalm 35:23, in both its Hebrew form (’ĕlōhay wa-’ăḏōnay) and its Targumic translation (Ĕlohāy ū-Mārēy), serves as a linguistic and theological precedent. The structure and terminology in John 20:28 align with the Psalm’s pairing of divine titles. This suggests that Thomas’ exclamation was not an innovation but was deeply rooted in the Jewish linguistic and theological tradition of addressing God. In first-century Palestine, the conversation between Thomas and Jesus likely occurred in Aramaic. Based on the Peshitta’s rendering and the linguistic evidence from the Hebrew Bible and its Targum, Thomas may have said something like: "מָרֵי וֵאלָהָי" (Marei w-Elohai). This reflects the natural way an Aramaic-speaking Jew would declare devotion and recognize divine authority. The declaration in John 20:28 is extraordinary because it is addressed directly to Jesus. In Jewish monotheism, such titles were reserved exclusively for Yahweh. By invoking both "My Lord" and "My God," Thomas expresses not just respect but worship, equating Jesus with the God (Yahweh).
A religious Jew might use the phrase "מָרֵי וֵאלָהָי" (Marei w-Elohai) in prayer, meditation, or Torah study when addressing God directly, expressing profound gratitude, submission, or awe. It could also be uttered in moments of introspection or during a heartfelt plea for guidance or forgiveness. This phrase is directed SOLELY to God, as it would not be appropriate to use it for addressing a human being in the Jewish faith due to its sanctified nature. In an ancient Jewish context, it would have at least extremely unlikely for the phrase "Marei w-Elohai" to be used casually or directed toward another person in moments of surprise or emotional outburst, as phrases involving the name of God (Elohai) were treated with great reverence. Jewish tradition, both ancient and modern, generally avoids casual or irreverent use of God's name or titles (cf. Exodus 20:7). This phrase, specifically meaning "My Lord and my God," would have been reserved for solemn, prayerful, or deeply devotional contexts, always directed EXCLUSIVELY toward the Almighty God. Using it in a way similar to expressions like "Oh my God!" in modern everyday English to address a human being in surprise or emotion would likely have been considered inappropriate or even blasphemous within Jewish religious norms. Cultural norms of the ancient world also emphasized the sacred nature of God's name, making it unlikely for such phrases to be used informally or without careful intention.
DeleteThe text explicitly states that Thomas "said TO HIM" (εἶπεν αὐτῷ), meaning the whole statement is directed at Jesus, not at the Father. There is no grammatical or contextual basis for redirecting Thomas's words to the Father. The context of John 20:24-29 focuses entirely on Jesus’s resurrection and Thomas's doubt. When Jesus invites Thomas to touch His wounds, Thomas responds with a direct confession of Jesus's identity: "My Lord and my God." This moment reflects Thomas's recognition of Jesus as both his risen Lord and his divine God. Thomas’s confession serves as the climactic conclusion of John’s Gospel, paralleling the prologue: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Thomas’s declaration reaffirms the divine identity of Jesus as introduced in John 1:1. The direct object pronoun ("to him") in both Greek (αὐτῷ) and Aramaic (ܠܶܗ) unambiguously points to Jesus as the recipient of the declaration. The immediate context—Thomas addressing Jesus after seeing his wounds—reinforces that this exclamation is directed at Jesus, not the Father.