How do JWs explain John 20:28?

Zico

Much is made of John 1:1 in Trinitarian discussions and there's a lot of debate over how it should be correctly translated, depending on your particular bias on the Jesus God issue, but surely there is no scripture more clear that Jesus is God than the one where Thomas directly calls him God in John 20:28? 27 Next he said to Thomas: “Put your finger here, and see my hands, and take your hand and stick it into my side, and stop being unbelieving but become believing.” 28 In answer Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!” How do Jehovah's Witnesses deal with this scripture? How does any unitarian deal with this scripture? Since I don't have access to a WT library, I'd be interested in seeing if anyone could post the Society's thoughts on this scripture.

Narkissos

E.g. Watchtower 10/1, 1962:

49
Teachers of the Trinity doctrine will argue that the Godship of Jesus Christ is proved by the words of the apostle Thomas in John 20:28. Thomas had told the other apostles that he would not believe that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead until Jesus materialized before him and let him put his finger in the print of the nails by which he had been fastened to the stake and until he thrust his hand into Jesus’ side, where a Roman soldier had jabbed him with a spear to make sure of Jesus’ death. So the following week Jesus reappeared to the apostles and told Thomas to do as he had said, to convince himself. "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." (AV) In the original Greek text this expression literally reads, word for word: "The Lord of me and the God of me."
50
So the trinitarians argue that Thomas’ expression "the God" spoken to Jesus proved that Jesus was the very God, a God of three Persons. However, Professor C. F. D. Moule says that the article the before the noun God may not be significant so as to mean such a thing. Regardless of that fact, let us take into account the situation back there to be sure of what the apostle Thomas meant.
51
Less than two weeks previously Thomas had heard Jesus pray to his heavenly Father and say: "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3, AV) On the fourth day after that prayer, or on his day of resurrection, Jesus sent a special message to Thomas and the other disciples by means of Mary Magdalene. "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her." (John 20:17, 18, AV) So from Jesus’ prayer and from this message through Mary Magdalene, Thomas knew who his own God was. His God was not Jesus Christ, but his God was the God of Jesus Christ. Also his Father was the Father of Jesus Christ. Thus Thomas knew that Jesus had a God whom he worshiped, namely, his heavenly Father.
52
How, then, could Thomas in an ecstasy of joy at seeing the resurrected Jesus for the first time burst out with an exclamation and speak to Jesus himself as being the one and only living, true God, the God whose name is Jehovah? How could Thomas, by what he spoke, mean that Jesus was himself "the only true God" or that Jesus was God in the Second Person of a Trinity? In view of what Thomas had heard from Jesus and had been told by Jesus, how can we read such a meaning into Thomas’ words: "My Lord and my God"?
53
Jesus would have reproved Thomas if Jesus had understood that Thomas meant that he, Jesus, was "the only true God" whom Jesus had called "my God" and "my Father." Certainly Jesus would not take a title away from God his Father or take away the unique position from God his Father. Since Jesus did not reprove Thomas as if addressing him in a wrong way, Jesus knew how to understand Thomas’ words, Scripturally. And so did the apostle John.
54
John was there and heard Thomas exclaim: "My Lord and my God." Did John say that the only thing for us to conclude from Thomas’ words was that Jesus was God, "the only true God" whose name is Jehovah? (Ps. 35:23, 24) Here would have been an excellent place for John to explain John 1:1 and say that Jesus Christ, who was the Word made flesh, was God himself, that he was "God the Son, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity." But is that the conclusion that John reached? Is that the conclusion to which John brings his readers? Listen to the conclusion that John wants us to reach:
55
"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye might believe." That we might believe what? "That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."—John 20:29-31, AV.

56
In his life account of Jesus John wrote the things to persuade us to believe, not that Jesus is God, that Christ is God, or that Jesus is "God the Son," but that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." The trinitarians designedly twist things by saying "God the Son." But we take John’s explanation the way that he words it, namely, "Christ, the Son of God." We follow John to the same conclusion that he reached, that Jesus is the Son of the One whom Jesus calls "my Father" and "my God," in this same twentieth chapter of John. Hence Thomas was not worshiping "God the Father" and "God the Son" at one and the same time as equals in a "triune God."
57
Thomas worshiped the same God whom Jesus Christ worshiped, namely, Jehovah God, the Father. So if Thomas addressed Jesus as "my God," Thomas had to recognize Jesus’ Father as the God of a God, hence as a God higher than Jesus Christ, a God whom Jesus himself worshiped. Revelation 4:1-11 gives a symbolic description of this God, the "Lord God Almighty," who sits upon the heavenly throne and who lives forever and ever; but the next chapter, Revelation 5:1-8, describes Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God who comes to the Lord God Almighty on his throne and takes a scroll out of God’s hand. This illustrates the meaning of Jesus’ words to Thomas and the other apostles: "I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (John 14:28, AV) Jesus thus recognized his Father as the Lord God Almighty, without an equal, greater than his Son.

Zico

Thanks Narkissos. I don't know about proving the Trinity, which is what the Society are arguing against here, since it doesn't mention holy spirit, but if they were being honest, you would certainly have to accept that Thomas considered Jesus 'God' as he was directly speaking to him. Basically then, their argument is, 'since Jesus is not God, Thomas was obviously not speaking about Jesus' They like to use this type of argument against many obvious points, such as Rev 19:1. 'Since the great crowd aren't in heaven, this must be a different great crowd.' That's obviously creating doctrine and forcing the bible to apply to it, rather than finding doctrine from the bible. What I find amusing, is that when I read this scripture, I thought 'If Jesus didn't consider himself God surely he would have rebuked Thomas for calling him 'God'?' and saw that as proof of the bible (or at least part of it) teaching Jesus Godship, whereas the Society use this same point to argue against Jesus Godship. Bizarre.

Fred E Hathaway

There is no argument (line of thought) which every person will accept. Some look at the fact that the word God/god (even in English) has more than one meaning, including divine one or even judge (when translated from Hebrew passages such as Psalm 82). Some look at the fact that in a different culture and time period, words together may have different idiomatic meanings than we suppose. The more familiar the reader is with various cultures and languages, the easier it is to get the spirit of the interaction between Thomas and Jesus.

It reminds me of many conversations that people around hear snatches of, from which many twisted rumors are spread. The Apostle Peter was referred to as Satan by Jesus (Matthew 16:23), I think, in much the same way as Thomas referred to Jesus. Peter certainly was/is not, in fact, Satan [the Master Evil One], just as Jesus was/is not, in fact, Jehovah [the Supreme God of the Universe].

jwfacts

If you check http://www.jwfacts.com/index_files/worshipjesus.htm until the 1950's the WTS used to worship Jesus, pray to him and accept him as a God. The problem is that it meant they were a polytheistic religion. To overcome this they could either accept the Trinity, or say Jesus should not be considered a God. I believe this is why the Trinity doctrine was formulated. The NT parallels Jesus so closely with Jehovah that it had to be said they are one and the same.

Zico

Fred, Thomas called Jesus 'my God' in a direct conversation with him. So therefore, Thomas believed Jesus was his God. Jesus did not correct this belief. There is no getting around this scripture, just accept it.

Zico

JWfacts, Have I ever told you I love your site? I have read every page on it, I will read that one again. Thanks.

moggy lover

I'm not attempting to inject a sense of levity into this thread, but honestly, these are two of the ways older WT followers used to counter this text in my presence:

1 Thomas said: "My Lord, [and looking up to heaven] and my God"

But personally this one was always my favourite:

2 Thomas said: "[Oh] my Lord!! and [Oh] my God!!.... You mean those are real holes???"

Cheers

Zico

LOL moggy lover! Anything but accepting that Thomas might have actually called Jesus 'God' eh?

slimboyfat

Thomas was obviously calling Jesus God in the same way I call my big toe God when I stub it on the door ("Oh God, that's sore" or words to that effect). That's the standard JW explanation. I'm surprised you never heard it.

Slim

How do JWs explain John 20:28?

Share this