What did Thomas really mean?

[placebofactor]

Thomas said to Jesus, my Lord and my God referring to him as both. Yet the Jehovah's Witnesses say he was speaking of Jesus as Lord and the Father as God. Why is that incorrect?

John 20:28, “And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.” Thomas’s words were a direct address to Jesus. The text explicitly states that Thomas answered and said unto him.

The antecedent of him is Jesus, who had just appeared to Thomas and invited him to touch His wounds, John 20:27. There is no grammatical or contextual indication that Thomas suddenly shifted his words to the Father.

Thomas uses one continuous declaration: “My Lord and my God.” The Greek text is “ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου," both titles are joined by καὶ (“and”), applied to the same person. There is no suggestion of a split reference that Lord = Jesus, and God = Father. The construction is emphatic, not divided.

In John 20:29, Jesus accepts Thomas’s confession: “Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed…” If Thomas had mistakenly addressed the Father, he would have corrected him. Instead, Jesus affirms Thomas’s belief, showing that the confession was directed to Him. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ claim that Thomas meant “Jesus as Lord, the Father as God.” This is grammatically and contextually unsupported. The text itself, in both English and Greek, shows Thomas directly confessing the deity of Christ.

Your thoughts:

[1213]

...Your thoughts:

Jesus had told God lives in him. Therefore I believe Thomas was speaking about Jesus and God, without meaning Jesus is the God.

Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I tell you, I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Fa-ther, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works’ sake.
John 14:10-11

[Capbook]

...Your thoughts:

Jesus had told God lives in him. Therefore I believe Thomas was speaking about Jesus and God, without meaning Jesus is the God.

Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I tell you, I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Fa-ther, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works’ sake.
John 14:10-11

For a Jew to call another human associate "my Lord and my God" would be almost beyond belief. Thomas made an immediate transition from declared unbelief to radical belief. He addressed Jesus with titles of deity, calling Him Lord and God. It is also significant that Jesus accepted these titles, and did not tell Thomas, “Don’t call Me that.”

[placebofactor]

...Your thoughts:

Jesus had told God lives in him. Therefore I believe Thomas was speaking about Jesus and God, without meaning Jesus is the God.

Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I tell you, I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Fa-ther, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works’ sake.
John 14:10-11

1213 it appears you would like to set aside all the rules that govern both Greek and English. I'm not saying you're being dishonest, but you're sure not being honest either about the interpretation. Thomas had to be no more than one foot from Jesus when he put his fingers into his wounds. Amazed would be an understatement. At that moment he must have been looking straight into his eyes, now understanding who Jesus was. Now humbled and humiliated for not believing Jesus had risen from the grave, he looks at him, face to face, and said, "My Lord and my God."

[tygger too]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #4]

John 20:28 - “My God”

John 20:19 - “On the evening of that day [when the resurrected Jesus was first seen], the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’

(:20) - “When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. THEN [upon seeing this] the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.

(:21) - “Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’

(:22) - “And when he had said this he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.

(:23) - “‘If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’

(:24) - “Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came.

(:25) - “So the other disciples told him, ‘We have seen the Lord.’ But he said to them, ‘Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails [as the other disciples had already seen], and place my hand in his side, I will not believe.’ [Believe what?]

(:26) - “Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, ‘Peace be with you.’

(:27) - “Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here, and SEE my hands; and put your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing.’ [believing what?]

(:28) - “Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’

(:29) - “Jesus said to him, ‘Have you believed because you have SEEN me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.’ [believed what?]

(:30) - “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;

(:31) - “but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” - John 20:19-31, RSV.

[tygger too]

[Replying to tygger too in post #5]

(1) Thomas had said (verse :25) that unless something happened he would “not believe.” What was it that Thomas refused to believe? Was it that he refused to believe that Jesus was equally God with the Father? There is certainly no hint of this before or after Thomas’ statement at John 20:28.

If the disciples had learned, upon seeing the resurrected Jesus, that he was God, certainly they would have indicated this! But notice, neither before nor after receiving Holy Spirit (:22) did they kneel or do any act of worship such as one would certainly do upon coming aware of being in the presence of God!

Notice that the disciples who had seen Jesus earlier did not tell Thomas that Jesus was God (:25)! This is an incredible oversight if they had really believed they had seen God! Certainly, if they had discovered that Jesus was really God when they saw him resurrected, they would have talked of nothing else!

If, on the other hand, they had already known that Jesus was God even before seeing his resurrected form, then Thomas, too, would have already known about it and certainly would not have meant: “Unless I see ... the print of nails [etc.] ... I will not believe [Jesus is God].”

No, the context of John 20:24, 25, and 29 shows that Thomas refused to believe that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead. (See footnote for John 20:8 in The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985: “John did not say what [the disciple who saw the empty tomb of Jesus] believed, but it must have been that Jesus was resurrected.” - Also see Barclay’s The Daily Study Bible Series: The Gospel of John, Revised Edition, Vol. 2, p. 267, and pp. 275, 276.)

[tygger too]

[Replying to tygger too in post #6]

Jesus’ command to Thomas to literally touch his wounds and actually see his hands proves that he meant, “See, I am the same person you saw die, but now I am alive ... be believing that I have been resurrected to life” (not, “see, these wounds prove I am God ... be believing that I am God”).

Notice that the reason given for Thomas to “be believing” is that he can see Jesus’ hands and their wounds. Likewise, after Thomas says “My Lord and my God,” Jesus reaffirms that Thomas now believes (as did the other disciples after seeing - Jn.20:20) that Jesus has been resurrected (not that he is God) “because you have seen me” (:29).

Certainly Jesus wouldn’t mean, “you believe I am God because you can see me.” Instead, this is proof that Jesus, Thomas, John, and the other disciples did not believe Jesus was equally God with the Father! How? Because John himself has made it manifestly clear that “no one [no human] has ever seen God” - 1 John 4:12, RSV.

“For the NT God is utterly invisible (Jn. 6:46; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16; Col. 1:15). ‘God does not become visible; He is revealed,’ ... yet the resurrection narratives especially stress that the risen Christ is visible.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, p. 518, Vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.

Therefore, since no man has ever directly seen God (who is the Father only - John 5:37, 6:46; 17:1, 3) but men have only indirectly “seen” God through representations such as visions, dreams, etc., Jesus is saying: “Believe I have been resurrected and that I am obviously not God because you see me directly (and even touch me so you can be sure I’m not a vision or an indirect representation).”

Or, as the trinitarian The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985, states in a footnote for this scripture:

“This whole Gospel is written to show the truth of Jesus’ Messiahship and to present him as the Son of God, so that the readers may believe in him.”

Obviously, neither Jesus’ response, nor Thomas’ responses (before and after his statement at John 20:28), nor John’s summation of the event at 20:31 recognizes Thomas’ statement to mean that Jesus is the only true God!

[tygger too]

[Replying to tygger too in post #7]

To understand what may have really been intended by Thomas, let’s first examine it as if the words were not directly applied to Jesus. Notice the parallel between 1 Samuel 20:12 (where Jonathan’s words appear to be directed to David: “... Jonathan saith unto David, ‘Jehovah, God of Israel - when I search my father, about this time tomorrow ....’” - Young’s Literal Translation, cf. KJV) and John 20:28 (where Thomas’ words appear to be directed to Jesus: “Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’”).

The significant point here is that, although the scripture shows Jonathan speaking to David, it apparently literally calls him (David) “O LORD God”!! (For a straightforward literal translation see 1 Samuel 20:12 in the King James Version.) You can bet that, if modern Bible translators wanted to find “evidence” that made King David also appear to be equally God (Quadrinarians?), they would continue to translate this scripture addressed to David just as literally as they do John 20:28 to “prove” that Jesus is equally God!

Instead, we see many modern translations adding words to bring out what they believe may have been originally intended. There is absolutely no reason for this addition except the translators believe from the testimony of the rest of the Bible that David is not Jehovah God. So something else must have been intended here.

Translators from about 200 B.C. (Septuagint) until now have been guessing (and disagreeing) at exactly what was intended here. It was probably some common idiom of the time such as: “I promise you in the sight of the LORD the God of Israel” - NEB, or, as found in the ancient Septuagint: “Jonathan said unto David, ‘The Lord God of Israel knows that....’”

A significant interpretation by the NIV is, “By the LORD God of Israel” which is an oath by Jonathan meaning, probably, “I swear by the LORD God....” (cf. Tanakh translation by JPS, 1985). Perhaps the most-used interpretation is: “Jehovah, the God of Israel, (be witness)....” - ASV (cf. NASB, RSV, AT, NKJV). The very trinitarian ETRV renders it: “Jonathan said to David, ‘I make this promise before the Lord [Jehovah], the God of Israel….’”

[OneJack]

Thomas said to Jesus, my Lord and my God referring to him as both. Yet the Jehovah's Witnesses say he was speaking of Jesus as Lord and the Father as God. Why is that incorrect?

John 20:28, “And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.” Thomas’s words were a direct address to Jesus. The text explicitly states that Thomas answered and said unto him.

The antecedent of him is Jesus, who had just appeared to Thomas and invited him to touch His wounds, John 20:27. There is no grammatical or contextual indication that Thomas suddenly shifted his words to the Father.

Thomas uses one continuous declaration: “My Lord and my God.” The Greek text is “ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου," both titles are joined by καὶ (“and”), applied to the same person. There is no suggestion of a split reference that Lord = Jesus, and God = Father. The construction is emphatic, not divided.

In John 20:29, Jesus accepts Thomas’s confession: “Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed…” If Thomas had mistakenly addressed the Father, he would have corrected him. Instead, Jesus affirms Thomas’s belief, showing that the confession was directed to Him. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ claim that Thomas meant “Jesus as Lord, the Father as God.” This is grammatically and contextually unsupported. The text itself, in both English and Greek, shows Thomas directly confessing the deity of Christ.

Your thoughts:

Lord and God is one, so is Jesus and Father - the Almighty God alone. Now, who and what are the missing links to the so-called distinction about the terminologies ‘Jesus’ and ‘God,’ which the biblical scholars have perpetuated in relation to the incarnation of God? The missing links are the man whom God used as His vessel when He came in the flesh, and the names that God commanded to be called unto that man’s name. The man was the Son of God per se - the physical body - which was born of Mary. The Spirit and Life that was in that body was God Himself, hence His (God’s) names - Immanuel, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Jesus.

Reference verses: Isa 7:14; 9:6; Matt 1:21; Luke 1:35; John 14:10-11; 17:3

Conclusion: The ‘my Lord and my God’ that Thomas said to the Son of God is directly addressed to the Spirit and Life that was in him (Son of God) since Thomas knew the Son per se was a man like him.

[tygger too]

[Replying to tygger too in post #8]

The very fact that the words of Thomas are not a complete statement show that it is probably the abbreviated form of a common expression or doxology and not a statement of identification such as “you are my lord and my god.” Whereas doxologies and other common expressions are frequently abbreviated to the point of not being complete statements (cf. Dana and Mantey, p. 149), statements of identification appear to be complete statements (certainly in the writings of John, at least), e.g., Jn 1:49, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.” - NASB. Cf. Jn. 6:14, 69; 7:40, 41; 9:17; 11:27; 21:7. Furthermore, when using the term “Lord” (at least) in address to another person, a different form of the NT Greek word is used than the form found at John 20:28 (ho kurios mou).

“The vocative is the case used in addressing a person .... kurie [kurie] (O Lord), Θee (O God) ... are almost the only forms found in the N.T.” - pp. 14, 15, The New Testament Greek Primer, Rev. Alfred Marshall, Zondervan, 1978 printing.

This is especially true of “Lord” and “my Lord” in both the Septuagint and the New Testament. Kurie, not kurios, is the form used when addressing someone as “Lord” or “My Lord.” (“God,” Θεε, however, is not so certain. In fact it is very rare in the NT which normally uses the nominative Θεὸς in address).

We can see a good example of this vocative form, which is used in addressing a person as “Lord,” at 3 Kings 1:20, 21 (1 Kings 1:20, 21 in modern English Bibles) in the ancient Greek of the Septuagint: “And you, my Lord [kurie mou], O King ...” - 3 Kings 1:20, Septuagint. Then at 3 Kings 1:21 we see the same person (King David) being spoken about (but not addressed) in the same terms as Jn 20:28: “And it shall come to pass, when my Lord [ho kurios mou] the king shall sleep with his fathers .... - 3 Kings 1:21, Septuagint.

We also find Thomas himself, at Jn 14:5, addressing Jesus as “Lord” by using kurie. And, when addressing the angel at Rev. 7:14, John himself says kurie mou (“My Lord”)![6] There are 33 uses of kurie in the Gospel of John alone. Here are a few of them: John 9:38; 11:3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39; 12:38 (from OT quote-'Jehovah' as kurie); 13:6, 9, 25, 36, 37; 14:5. (Compare these with an actual identification of the lord: “it is the lord [kurios],” John 21:7 – Also, for Colwell’s Rule fans, note the use of the article and the word order of the clause in the two clauses identifying the Lord here.)

All uses of kurie (vocative form or noun of address for kurios: "lord, sir, master.") - 120 in NT. No undisputed uses of the nominative form (kurios) as a noun of address.

Therefore, it is safe to say that when John wrote down the incident with Thomas at Jn 20:28 and used the nominative form for “My Lord” [Kurios] he was not saying that Thomas was addressing Jesus as “My Lord and my God”!