The Gospel
of John, particularly chapter 20, verse 28, presents one of the most
significant affirmations of Jesus’ identity in the New Testament. After
witnessing the resurrected Jesus, the apostle Thomas declares, "My Lord
and my God!". For Trinitarians, this verse is a cornerstone of
Christology, explicitly affirming Jesus’ deity as part of the Triune
Godhead. However, Jehovah’s Witnesses, who adhere to a non-Trinitarian
theology, offer alternative interpretations, suggesting Thomas’s words were an
exclamation, addressed to the Father, or referred to Jesus as a lesser
"god."
Grammatical
and Linguistic Analysis
The Greek
text of John 20:28 reads: "ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου" ("Thomas
answered and said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’"). The phrase "εἶπεν αὐτῷ" ("he said to him")
unequivocally indicates that Thomas is addressing Jesus directly. In Koine
Greek, the nominative forms "ὁ κύριός μου" and "ὁ θεός μου" serve as vocatives,
a common practice for direct address, especially in contexts of reverence or
worship, as noted in scholarly grammars. The definite article "ὁ" before "θεός" (God)
denotes specificity, aligning with references to the one true God, not a lesser
deity. The possessive pronoun "μου" ("my") underscores
Thomas’s personal acknowledgment of Jesus as his Lord and God. The Exegetical
Commentary on the Original Languages describes this as the "climax of
Messianic faith," emphasizing Jesus’ divine nature over a mere
exclamation.
Cultural
and Historical Context
In
first-century Jewish culture, the sanctity of God’s name was paramount. The
third commandment (Exodus 20:7) forbids taking the Lord’s name in vain, and
blasphemy was a capital offense (Leviticus 24:16). As a devout Jew, Thomas
would not have used "my God" flippantly, as it risked severe
religious consequences. His declaration, therefore, must be understood as a
deliberate confession of faith. Jesus’ response, commending Thomas’s belief
(John 20:29), without any rebuke, contrasts sharply with instances where angels
redirect worship to God, affirming the correctness of Thomas’s address.
Biblical
Consistency and Theological Significance
The phrase
"my God" appears over 100 times in the Bible, consistently referring
to YHWH, the God of Israel (e.g., Psalm 35:23, Revelation 4:11). In John 20:28,
Thomas applies this title to Jesus, aligning with the high Christology of
John’s Gospel, which opens with "In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). This confession
fulfills the Gospel’s purpose: "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). The title "Son of God" in John carries
divine connotations, as evidenced by John 5:18, where Jesus’ claim to be God’s
Son is interpreted as equality with God.
Old
Testament Parallels
Thomas’s
exclamation mirrors Psalm 35:23, where the psalmist addresses God as "my
God and my Lord" (Hebrew: אֱלֹהַי וַאדֹנָי, Elohai va’Adonai;
Septuagint: ὁ θεός μου καὶ ὁ κύριός μου).
The Aramaic Peshitta rendering of John 20:28, Mari w-Alahi ("My
Lord and my God"), reflects a similar structure, suggesting Thomas used
language reserved for YHWH. In first-century Palestine, where Aramaic was
common, Thomas likely said something like Marei w-Elohai, a phrase used
exclusively for God in Jewish devotion, indicating worship of Jesus as divine.
Refuting
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Interpretations
Jehovah’s
Witnesses propose several interpretations of John 20:28, each of which is
addressed below:
Exclamation
of Surprise
Jehovah’s
Witnesses suggest Thomas’s words were an emotional outburst, akin to "Oh
my God!". However, the Greek "εἶπεν αὐτῷ" clearly denotes direct
address to Jesus. In Jewish culture, casual use of God’s name was unthinkable,
as it risked blasphemy. Jesus’ commendation of Thomas’s belief (John 20:29)
further indicates that the declaration was a correct confession, not a
spontaneous outburst.
Addressing
Both Jesus and the Father
Another
claim is that Thomas addressed Jesus as "my Lord" and the Father as
"my God." The singular pronoun "αὐτῷ" ("to him") refers
solely to Jesus, and the context—Thomas responding to Jesus’ wounds—focuses
entirely on Jesus. There is no textual basis for splitting the address between
two persons.
Jesus as
a Lesser "God"
Jehovah’s
Witnesses argue that Thomas called Jesus "a god," not the Almighty
God, citing their translation of John 1:1 ("the Word was a god").
However, "ὁ θεός" in John 20:28, with the definite article, typically denotes
the one true God. In Jewish monotheism, "my God" implies worship of
YHWH, not a lesser deity. Calling another being "my God" would
violate the first commandment (Exodus 20:3), making this interpretation
untenable for a Jew like Thomas.
Comparison
to Angels
Some liken
Thomas’s address to instances where angels are called "God" as God’s
representatives (e.g., Genesis 18, Exodus 3). In such cases, the angel speaks
for God, and the address is ultimately to God. In John 20:28, Thomas directly
addresses Jesus after witnessing his resurrection, with no indication of
speaking through Jesus to the Father. Jesus’ acceptance of the title, unlike
angels who redirect worship (Revelation 19:10), confirms its appropriateness.
Jesus’
Reference to "My God"
Jehovah’s
Witnesses point to John 20:17, where Jesus says, "I am ascending to my
Father and your Father, to my God and your God," arguing that Jesus cannot
be God if he has a God. Trinitarian theology explains that in his human nature,
Jesus relates to the Father as his God (Philippians 2:6-8), while in his divine
nature, he is co-equal with the Father (John 10:30). This dual nature allows
Jesus to call the Father "my God" without negating his deity.
Early
Christian Interpretation
Early
Church Fathers consistently viewed John 20:28 as affirming Jesus’ deity.
Cyprian (210–258 AD) cited it as proof that "Christ is God" in his Three
Books of Testimonies Against the Jews. Augustine wrote, "Thomas saw
and touched the man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor
touched." These pre-Nicene interpretations underscore the early Church’s
belief in Jesus’ deity, countering claims that Trinitarianism is a later
development.
Alternative
Terms and Their Absence
If the
apostles intended to avoid equating Jesus with YHWH, alternative Greek terms
were available. For "lord," terms like δεσπότης (master) or ἄρχων (ruler) could have been used instead of κύριος,
which often translates YHWH in the Septuagint. For "god," terms like θεῖος (divine) or ἡμίθεος (demigod) could indicate lesser divinity, but θεός
with the definite article suggests the one true God. The deliberate use of κύριός
and θεός supports the Trinitarian view.
“But John
says elsewhere that Jesus is not God, but only his Son!”
The
objection that John 20:31 negates the full deity of Christ, or renders the
Trinitarian reading of Thomas’s confession in John 20:28 invalid, reflects a
fundamental misunderstanding of both Johannine Christology and classical
Christian theology. The assertion that “Son of God” is somehow antithetical to
“God,” or that Jesus’ confession as “Son” necessarily excludes him from full
deity, cannot be maintained in light of the linguistic, historical, and
theological context of John’s Gospel.
First, the
very logic that “Son of God” must mean “not God” ignores the consistent
biblical use of filial language to indicate shared essence, not merely
subordination or created status. In the ancient Near Eastern and specifically
Jewish milieu, “sonship” can and does signify equality of nature—precisely why,
as John 5:18 records, the Jewish interlocutors sought to kill Jesus “because he
was calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” John’s Gospel
repeatedly affirms that the Son’s relationship with the Father is not one of
mere emissary or creature, but of consubstantiality: “I and the Father are one”
(John 10:30), and “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).
The
supposed opposition between John 20:28 and 20:31 evaporates upon inspection.
The Evangelist’s purpose statement in John 20:31—“that you may believe that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”—functions not as a denial of Christ’s
deity, but as its programmatic assertion, in harmony with the high Christology
inaugurated in the Prologue: “the Word was God” (John 1:1), and “the Word
became flesh” (1:14). The title “Son of God,” when applied to Christ in
Johannine usage, carries with it the full weight of deity, as made clear by
the context of John’s narrative and the reaction of his audience (cf. John
19:7).
Halcon’s attempt to resolve the issue by proposing that “God” should be
reserved for “someone that is ultimate and above all else” and thus that “three
separate persons” would “change the meaning of the word God” is a non sequitur
rooted in a philosophical unawareness of the doctrine of divine simplicity and
the classical distinction between “person” (hypostasis) and “nature” (ousia) as
articulated in Nicene and post-Nicene theology. The Catholic doctrine does not
posit three Gods, but one divine essence subsisting wholly and undividedly in
three Persons. Each Person fully possesses the one divine essence, so that the
attribution of “God” to the Son does not multiply gods, nor does it fragment
the divine unity. To insist that the term “God” can only ever mean a single
“person” (in the modern, individualistic sense) is to import a post-biblical,
even post-Trinitarian, conceptual scheme foreign to both the scriptural text
and patristic exegesis.
The
argument that John 20:17—where Jesus, speaking as the incarnate Son, refers to
the Father as “my God”—somehow negates the confession of Thomas is a well-known
confusion, long refuted by the Church Fathers. In his human nature, Christ
prays to the Father and relates to him as God; in his divine nature, he is of
one essence with the Father and worthy of the same worship and adoration, as is
evident in the very structure of Thomas’s acclamation: “My Lord and my God!”
This confession directly addresses Jesus, as the grammar of the Greek makes
explicit (εἶπεν αὐτῷ). The attempt to argue that Thomas is simply offering an exclamation,
or that he is speaking to the Father, is both grammatically and contextually
unsustainable and has no patristic support outside anti-Trinitarian or
rationalist circles.
Moreover,
the notion that “the Bible clearly describes the Father (God the Father) as
having attributes that God the Son doesn’t have, because they are two separate
beings although both retaining the title of God,” is a confusion of person and
nature. Catholic theology is precise: the distinctions between the persons of
the Trinity lie not in their deity or in possession of divine attributes,
but in their relations of origin—the Father is unbegotten, the Son is eternally
begotten, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father (and, in Western theology,
from the Son). What the Father is, the Son is, save only the property of
paternity; what the Son is, the Father is, save only filiation. Any apparent
differences in scriptural narrative (such as the Son praying to the Father)
arise from the incarnational economy, not from ontological inequality.
The
reference to “three separate beings” further betrays a failure to appreciate
the Catholic (and patristic) understanding of hypostatic distinction without
ontological division. The Church teaches, in line with the Fathers and
Councils, that the divine persons are distinct but not separate; they are not
three gods, nor three beings, but one God in three persons. To assert otherwise
is to regress into tritheism or Unitarianism, neither of which finds any real
warrant in the New Testament or in the tradition of the Church.
Finally,
the application of “my Lord and my God” to Jesus is of the highest theological
significance. This phrase echoes Psalm 35:23 and applies the very terms used of
Yahweh in the Old Testament to Jesus in his risen glory. The structure of the
Gospel of John, as well as the immediate context of Jesus’ commendation of
Thomas’s faith, precludes any interpretation other than a direct confession of
the deity of Christ. The testimony of the early Church, from Ignatius of
Antioch to Augustine, stands with unwavering unanimity: John 20:28 is the
climactic acknowledgment of Christ’s full deity, a truth confessed in the very
heart of the Christian liturgy and doctrine.
In summary,
the attempted Arian reduction of the Johannine witness does violence both to
the text and to its reception in Christian history. To be the Son of God, in
the sense intended by John, is to be “of one being with the Father.” The
confession of Thomas, recognized and affirmed by Jesus himself, is not a
mistaken or ambiguous address, but the Spirit-inspired proclamation that the
crucified and risen Jesus is, in the fullest sense, “My Lord and my God.” Any
exegesis that fails to acknowledge this does not so much interpret John’s
Gospel as mutilate its testimony.
Theological
Implications
Thomas’s
confession is the climactic moment of John’s Gospel, echoing the prologue’s
declaration that "the Word was God" (John 1:1). It aligns with John’s
purpose to demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, with divine
authority to grant eternal life (John 20:31, John 10:28). The early Christian
practice of worshipping Jesus, as noted by Pliny the Younger in 112 AD, further
supports this interpretation.
Conclusion
The
Trinitarian interpretation of John 20:28 is robustly supported by grammatical,
cultural, biblical, and historical evidence. Thomas’s declaration, "My
Lord and my God," directly addresses Jesus, acknowledging his divine
nature. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ alternative interpretations—exclamation, dual
address, lesser god, or angelic comparison—fail to account for the text’s
clarity, Jewish monotheism, and Jesus’ acceptance of the titles. Supported by
early Christian testimony, John 20:28 stands as a powerful affirmation of
Jesus’ deity within the framework of Trinitarian theology.
