Today I am providing the next part of my new sub-chapter into explicit references of Jesus being called "God".
John 20:28 – My Lord and my God!
John 20:28 brings us to what is probably the most explicit attribution to Jesus
of the title “God” in the whole New Testament. Furthermore, and unlike in John 1:1, the definite article
preceding "God" is also significantly present (ho
Theos). The context of this famous declaration is that Jesus has now been
raised and most of his disciples had seen him and been “breathed on” by him –
but not Thomas. Like some other disciples, Thomas has doubts. Jesus subsequently
confronts him and commands him to stop doubting and believe. Thomas’ response
is “My Lord and my God” (and to worship – it is not clear if he actually takes
up Jesus on his invitation to touch his wounds, but presumably not according to
this account).
In this immediate context of doubt about God’s resurrection
of Jesus and the disciples’ own empowerment through Jesus’ breathing in v22-23,
why might Thomas say “My Lord and my God” to Jesus? Of course it is possible
that despite the multiple distinctions within John’s gospel between Jesus and his
Father God, that Thomas supernaturally glimpsed something of a totally
different level to John, which concerned Jesus’ very nature (or natures). Maybe
– because of the explicit wording we have to be open to it, or it might also be
argued to work nicely in tandem with the prologue (the God-Word became flesh). However,
since good Trinitarian theology is about big-picture reality of the life of God,
there are some other contextual considerations that should be integrated into
the exegetical analysis before developing theology from such a rare and
apparently explicit statement.
The first consideration is to properly account for the
author’s perspective. Although Thomas is “speaking” here, John is also speaking
throughout. It is not likely therefore that Thomas will have a different
insight to Jesus’ identity to that which John now holds 60 years later around A.D.
90. Within this very same chapter, Thomas’ statement is framed by two
significant facts. Firstly, when the raised Jesus addresses Mary Magdalene, he freely
and inclusively talks to her of his (and your) Father being his (and your) God
(20:17) – so here John has another explicit and quite different statement about
Jesus, that he and Mary share the same Father and God (see 7.3 God is the God of Jesus/Jesus has a
God/Jesus is the servant of God). Secondly,
the purpose of the book itself is plainly stated (20:31) so that, concerning
Jesus’ identity, John earnestly wants to convince his readers of Jesus’
identity claim. This claim, which is demonstrably not in Cappadocian terms, states
simply: the Messiah and the Son of God. For John, the Father is always in view
and never confused with the Son. So why on earth might both “Lord” and “God” seemingly be attributed to the
one Jesus here in John 20:28?
A minor second consideration is a hidden distinction in the Greek,
which emphasises the third point I will develop below. It would have been
possible for Thomas to simply state: “the Lord and God of me!” Yet, he does not
do that. What he actually says in the Greek is: “the Lord of me and the God of
me!”
With this in mind, let us move on to the final and most important
consideration of John’s purpose here: spurring disciples to know God the Father
in Christ. When we zoom in on just this passage for doctrinal purposes, Thomas’
character (and belief) development within John’s gospel are often sadly lost. For
in addition to the primary goal of revealing Jesus’ identity as God’s Messiah
and Son, John is also desperate for people to respond to the revelation he is
chronicling, and truly believe this dual (and to a less emphasised extent,
triple) reality. It seems impossible that this dual reality could be an
incredible revelation of Christ’s two natures! The dual reality is seeing both
Christ and God-the-Father-in-Christ. Believing (and its antithesis, doubting)
are key themes for him, so in encouraging late first century disciples in their
belief, tracking Thomas’ spiritual journey would have made a lot of sense. Just
look at how Jesus immediately responds to Thomas in the following verse: “blessed are those who have not seen and yet
have believed”. So to understand
Thomas’ “belief development”, we need to go back six chapters to chapter 14,
where both Thomas and Philip question Jesus about belief. Belief is to be in
God and in his Son (14:1), you cannot
short-circuit Jesus to the Father (14:6), and the Father is present in the Son.
If you see the Son then your desire to see the Father is satisfied, not because
the Father is the Son, but because
the Father is in the Son. You cannot
have one without the other. This is the journey that John is so keen to show
his disciples and readers later on. Zoom forward three chapters to John 17:3, and
Jesus prays this: Now this is eternal
life: that they know you, the only true
God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. Jesus and the Father
are to be known, both of them. For
Thomas as-yet without the Holy Spirit, that means knowing (and believing in) the
still-present Jesus and, through that Jesus, knowing their common Father.
In light of these three considerations, it therefore seems quite
possible to me that in 20:28, Thomas finally understands that the Father, who
in first century parlance is the one who is properly called “God” in the genitive
sense, that this Father is indeed in
the Son (John 14:10). Thomas might well then state “the Lord of me (a title in
the possessive form that is never attributed to God in the Bible but always to
human authorities[6]) and
the God of me” (specifically stating belief of the Father’s presence, truly and
astoundingly in Jesus).
It is somewhat ironical that the traditional interpretations,
which have pushed for simple divinity interpretations, have frequently failed
to identify and develop the deeper trinitarian and Johannine themes here of the
Father in the Son. 18th century commentaries such as Matthew Henry (We must believe his deity—that he is God;
not a man made God, but God made man, as this evangelist had laid down his
thesis at first, ch. 1:1[7])
have provided a normative precedent away from vertical contextualisation in
this case. Much later that century, British bishop Brooke F. Westcott,
unsurprisingly[8],
was more careful with the text, despite his failure to specifically join the
dots to the Father’s indwelling presence through his Holy Spirit (my emphasis):
The discipline of
self-questioning, followed by the revelation of tender compassion and divine
knowledge, enabled St. Thomas to rise to the loftiest view of the Lord given in
the Gospels ….
The record of this confession therefore forms the appropriate
close to his narrative; and the words which follow show that the Lord accepted
the declaration of His divinity as the true expression of faith. He never
speaks of Himself directly as God (comp. v. 18), but the aim of His revelation
was to lead men to see God in him.[9]
Perhaps Westcott was inspired by Augustine who also is close
but strangely un-trinitarian here:
[Thomas] saw and touched the man, and [then] acknowledged the
God whom he neither saw nor touched.[10]
Adolf Schlatter, however, was able to make a full connection
(my emphasis):
“The Word is God,” 1:1. The knowing of Jesus is then attained
when it is seen that “he is in the
Father and the Father is in him,” 14:10. Through his single word “my”
[Thomas’s] knowledge remains not just
knowledge but becomes faith.[11]
In final conclusion on Thomas, while it must obviously be concluded
that he does address Jesus as “God”, it is frankly disappointingly and
decidedly untrinitarian to isolate this passage from its overarching
witness of the Father in his Son, the Christ. Jesus himself states emphatically
throughout this same gospel:
But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not
alone. I stand with the Father, who
sent me. In your own Law
it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. I am one who
testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”
Then they asked him, “Where is your father?”
“You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you
knew me, you would know my Father also.” [12]
“The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone”.[13]
And finally, when Philip and Thomas ply Jesus with questions on
precisely this topic:
Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say,
'Show us the Father'? Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you
still do not know me, Philip? Whoever
has seen me has seen the Father. Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and
that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own
authority.[14]
[1]
For now I can say this: despite general historical shifts in understanding what
is going on with “Word” (logos), “God” (ho
theos and theos) and “Become” (egeneto), that Christians having access
to this passage or its precursor, have always believed that God’s eternal
divine word was incarnated in (or into) Jesus (as a Christian I also have made
the choice to believe that). This leaves incarnation Christology still very
open as my chapter above on the church fathers demonstrates. It is precisely
the interpretative options that I must still articulate and align with John’s
overarching themes and goals.
[2]
You will recall that there is a penalty system in place for texts where the
strength of their suggestiveness or dissuasiveness is weakened according to a
number of defined causes (see p. 51).
This category is concerned more than any other by the penalty system as we
shall now briefly see before we zoom into two of the most crucial of all blue
texts in the entire New Testament canon, and which are certainly not to be
penalised: John 20:28 and Hebrews 1:8-9.
[3] Of
course, we are assuredly not positing
a traditional evangelical view of first century Jewish monotheism that excludes
other real gods within Yahweh’s divine council (please refer to the Monotheism
entry in chapter 2 if needed; also see ).
[4]
Titus is harder for me to assume this because I cannot apply the same criterion
of consistency to a book that might
be the only text we have by its author. If that were true and it were written
in a later and more christologically developed situation, then the assumption
of distinction is a considerably weaker option. Earliest manuscript is Papyrus
32, dated late 2nd century.
[5]
Fortunately, this variation is footnoted by the NIV, which alerts readers to
the shakiness of this evidence
[6]
James 3:9 does not really present an exception to the rule given its textual
variations, which are not always footnoted in modern translations. Given the
biblical evidence, the variant “our God and Father” should be preferred.
[7] M.
Henry, Exposition of the Old and New
Testament, Vol. 3, p. 707, London: Joseph Ogle Robinson, 1708.
[8]
Unsurprising given his biblical and ground-breaking credentials in New
Testament textual criticism.
[9] B.
F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John,
p. 297, London: John Murray, 1894.
[10] Augustine,
John, 121:5, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 1 7:438,
Philip Schaff, T. & T. Clark, 1896-1900. One could legitimately pose the
question of compatibility between Augustine’s statement here and the ecumenical
and unshakable doctrinal stance of both Catholic and Orthodox theology, that
Mary is the Mother of God (431 Council of Ephesus): if Jesus could only be
touched and seen according to his human nature, which is presumably true, then
how could Mary be considered to have mothered him according to his divine
nature? A staunch defender of Augustinian theology might posit that Augustine
was simply stating that Thomas had not previously “seen” the Father in Jesus until
this revelatory moment, but then why this tense and not “whom he had neither
seen nor touched”? Of course the issue of physical contact with the risen Lord
is not entirely resolved, with some early ambiguity around the physical contact
may have been heightened through a tradition expressed by Ignatius in the early
2nd century which does categorically affirm this although the source
of that tradition is now lost to us. See R. Brown, The Virginal Conception & Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, p. 88
fn.150, Paulist Press, 1973. Brown does not, however, indicate why Matthew 28:9
was not relevant to him.
[11]
Adolf Schlatter, Johannes, p. 362, Evangel.
Verlag-Anst., 1954, cited by Frederick D. Bruner The Gospel of John: A Commentary, p. 1183, Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing, 2012 (Bruner cites page 362, which appears to be from a
translation, not the original).
[12]
John 8:16-19
[13]
John 8:29
[14]
John 14:9-10, obviously my own emphasis.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks very much for your feedback, really appreciate the interaction.