and Thomas answered and said unto him, “My Lord and my God!”- John 20:28
Greek transliteration:
kai apekrithe ho thomas kai eipen auto ho kurios ho kai ho theos mou
and answered the Thomas and said to-Him the Lord of me and the God of me
One of the most irrefutable evidences in proving Jesus Christ is God in found in John 20:28 where Thomas acknowledged Jesus as his Lord and God. In the context of John 20:24-29, Thomas refused to believe the testimony of the other apostles that Jesus had risen from the dead; Thomas demanded proof. Jesus then appeared and asked Thomas to see His hands and touch His sides. Thomas finally believed and he recognized the very Jesus who is his Lord and God.
Of course those who deny the deity of Christ have a way of going around this verse. Here are the frequently used objections and our rebuttal:
1. Thomas was just surprised to see Christ alive. His statement was like saying, "Oh my God!"
This is the most common objection. There is no Jewish expression of astonishment in that time similar to "Oh my God" as uttered by English-speaking nations. In fact, the objection has no merit since the original Greek is structured as, the Lord of me and the God of me.
Second, Jesus would have rebuked Thomas right there and then if it were not true that He is God. He would also rebuke him for using the name of God in vain.
Lastly, detractors of Christ's deity capitalize on certain Bible version that renders, "Thomas exclaimed". However, such versions are mistranslated as the verbs used there are apekrithe (answered) and eipen (said) which are hardly an expression of astonishment.
2. Thomas was addressing Christ on the "Lord" part while the Father is for the "God" part.
This is wishful thinking. The verse says "unto Him" and not "unto them". The context is clear that Thomas was doubting the resurrection of Christ. Thomas and the other apostles were obviously not talking to the Father at that time. There's no way for them to see the Father. So there is really no merit for the above objection.
3. John stated in 20:31 that his book was written so that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God. There is no mention that we would believe Jesus is God, so John 20:28 cannot support Christ's deity.
This objection is also problematic to the detractors of Christ's deity as John 20:31 also does not mention that we may believe Jesus is Lord. John 20:31 is only presenting two titles of Jesus that we must believe without necessarily denying both His deity and lordship.
4. It has to be an expression of astonishment because Thomas is in error here. Jesus already said that the Father is the only true God (John 17:3) and He even called the Father as His God (John 20:17).
For this objection to be valid, the interpretation of John 17:3 and John 20:17, which allegedly imply Jesus is not God, should be correct beyond doubt. Obviously, the objection is dependent on the correctness of the said interpretations and therefore begging the question.
In John 17:3, Jesus was indeed declaring that the Father is the only true God. But this verse is not saying Jesus is not God. In Mark 10:18, Jesus declared that God alone is good but it doesn't necessarily follow that Jesus is not good. Likewise for John 17:3.
John 20:17 isn't a problem for the proponents of Christ's deity because a difference in position does not mean inferiority in nature. It is true that Jesus was subjected to the Father thereby requiring Jesus to acknowledge the Father as His God. It's ironic that the voluntary submission of Christ to the Father would be used against His deity. Jesus could have rebuked, "No Thomas, I am not God." But He never did.
Conclusion
Those who attempt to go around John 20:28 to deny Jesus is God are just acting on their own biases. They do not allow the verse to speak for itself. As we have said before, if Thomas was really mistaken then there should have been a rebuke.
Greek transliteration:
kai apekrithe ho thomas kai eipen auto ho kurios ho kai ho theos mou
and answered the Thomas and said to-Him the Lord of me and the God of me
One of the most irrefutable evidences in proving Jesus Christ is God in found in John 20:28 where Thomas acknowledged Jesus as his Lord and God. In the context of John 20:24-29, Thomas refused to believe the testimony of the other apostles that Jesus had risen from the dead; Thomas demanded proof. Jesus then appeared and asked Thomas to see His hands and touch His sides. Thomas finally believed and he recognized the very Jesus who is his Lord and God.
Of course those who deny the deity of Christ have a way of going around this verse. Here are the frequently used objections and our rebuttal:
1. Thomas was just surprised to see Christ alive. His statement was like saying, "Oh my God!"
This is the most common objection. There is no Jewish expression of astonishment in that time similar to "Oh my God" as uttered by English-speaking nations. In fact, the objection has no merit since the original Greek is structured as, the Lord of me and the God of me.
Second, Jesus would have rebuked Thomas right there and then if it were not true that He is God. He would also rebuke him for using the name of God in vain.
Lastly, detractors of Christ's deity capitalize on certain Bible version that renders, "Thomas exclaimed". However, such versions are mistranslated as the verbs used there are apekrithe (answered) and eipen (said) which are hardly an expression of astonishment.
2. Thomas was addressing Christ on the "Lord" part while the Father is for the "God" part.
This is wishful thinking. The verse says "unto Him" and not "unto them". The context is clear that Thomas was doubting the resurrection of Christ. Thomas and the other apostles were obviously not talking to the Father at that time. There's no way for them to see the Father. So there is really no merit for the above objection.
3. John stated in 20:31 that his book was written so that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God. There is no mention that we would believe Jesus is God, so John 20:28 cannot support Christ's deity.
This objection is also problematic to the detractors of Christ's deity as John 20:31 also does not mention that we may believe Jesus is Lord. John 20:31 is only presenting two titles of Jesus that we must believe without necessarily denying both His deity and lordship.
4. It has to be an expression of astonishment because Thomas is in error here. Jesus already said that the Father is the only true God (John 17:3) and He even called the Father as His God (John 20:17).
For this objection to be valid, the interpretation of John 17:3 and John 20:17, which allegedly imply Jesus is not God, should be correct beyond doubt. Obviously, the objection is dependent on the correctness of the said interpretations and therefore begging the question.
In John 17:3, Jesus was indeed declaring that the Father is the only true God. But this verse is not saying Jesus is not God. In Mark 10:18, Jesus declared that God alone is good but it doesn't necessarily follow that Jesus is not good. Likewise for John 17:3.
John 20:17 isn't a problem for the proponents of Christ's deity because a difference in position does not mean inferiority in nature. It is true that Jesus was subjected to the Father thereby requiring Jesus to acknowledge the Father as His God. It's ironic that the voluntary submission of Christ to the Father would be used against His deity. Jesus could have rebuked, "No Thomas, I am not God." But He never did.
Conclusion
Those who attempt to go around John 20:28 to deny Jesus is God are just acting on their own biases. They do not allow the verse to speak for itself. As we have said before, if Thomas was really mistaken then there should have been a rebuke.
The nominative kurios (instead of the vocative kurie) is used, suggesting that Jesus is not being directly addressed and perhaps that someone else in addition to him is being invoked [the predicative reading, "Thomas answered him: (Jesus, you are) my Lord; (Father, you are) my God." Some scholars say he may have averted his gaze to the heavens to utter the "Father, you are my God" part.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest clincher is that the Granville Sharp rule says that a "the-noun-and-the-noun" order must always be present to claim that the passage directly identifies two distinct individuals.
Clearly, John 20:28 abides by this rule. Conveniently, though, the original inventor of the rule, Granville Sharp (a trinitarian), said that John 20:28 is "an exception to the rule", for, according to him, contextually it is obvious that one person is being spoken to even though the article appears twice.
The evidence is within the Greek grammar structure. There are two distinct entities being address. The data speaks for itself.
I don't know much about the Granville Sharp's rule, but the one thing you forgot to consider is the pronoun "him". Had it turned out as you're suggesting, we should have seen the word "them". But that didn't happen.
DeleteThe comments of anonymous above is quite good. I knew of that line of response which INC's may possibly use, but I had kept it and never shared it in public. But INC's are really good in their R&D, and now they've discovered it.
ReplyDeleteThe phrase "my lord and my God" can be taken separately and INC's may accuse us of committing the fallacy of "Composition" because we're taking it together. But of course we can also accuse them of committing the fallacy of "Division" for taking separately what is composed.
I don't know anything of the Granville Sharp's rule either, but I don't agree with the statement that "a "the-noun-and-the-noun" order must always be present to claim that the passage directly identifies two distinct individuals". Semantically and syntactically, a "the-noun-and-the-noun" order both could mean one and two distinct individuals. At any rate, the context determines the correct meaning.
Hence, the last option of INC's is to move to "meta-scripture", that is, adopt a liberal stand on scripture and assert that the passage was not historically correct as it was a post-resurrection narrative.
This last option however is not implausible. But if INC's will opt to do so, then they have to give up their sola-scriptura doctrine and become "ecclesiocentric".
Hi Mr. De La Rosa,
Delete[The phrase "my lord and my God" can be taken separately and INC's may accuse us of committing the fallacy of "Composition" because we're taking it together. But of course we can also accuse them of committing the fallacy of "Division" for taking separately what is composed.]
Like I said, the idea that "my Lord and my God" can refer to two people is twarted by the preceding phrase "Thomas said unto HIM" which is singular.
[This last option however is not implausible. But if INC's will opt to do so, then they have to give up their sola-scriptura doctrine and become "ecclesiocentric".]
They were never sola-scriptura to begin with. They are ecclesioncentric as you said. That's because every member is dependent on their ministers' interpretation.
Thanks.
yeah you're right. I just learned that they are not sola-scriptura. I discovered it from one your posts.
DeleteYeah I also agree. The context is clear. It was directly addressed only to Christ.
But as I have said, the "two individuals" interpretation is not implausible if they adopt a liberal stance on scripture. John may have presented the response of James as if it refers to Christ only, but the INC's may argue that John was theologizing, that is, he made the statement appear to refer to Christ alone but in reality or what really historically occurred was that James addressed the "the Lord of me" to Christ while the "the God of me" to the Father. But because the main (post-resurrection) theological agenda of John in his gospel was to slowly introduce the Divine identity of Christ, he narrated the event as if the statement was directed to Christ only. Hence, when we read John 20:28, the context appears to us as directed to Christ alone.
Note: It is not necessary that James gaze to heaven when he said the "the God of me" part. What is necessary is that there is a change in his intention (functional) as to the subject of his statement.
I am not afraid of sharing this to the public even though INC's will surely copy this line of argument. The reason is because I know also of a way to refute it.
Fair enough. By the way, it's Thomas not James. :)
Deleteah ok. hehe, sorry!
ReplyDeletePasensya na kasi and dami kasi iniisip ko.
Anyway, nice discussing with you. Maybe soon, I'll be posting on my blog apologetical articles. My blog used to be for my fellow Catholics, but this time, makikisawsaw na ako since I can see that there are so many things that need to be clarified.. :)