John 20:28

                                                                                STUDIES IN GOD'S HOLY WORD

             TOPIC: The Words of Thomas in John 20:28, what do they mean?

                   The story of our Lord Jesus Christ and the challenge of "doubting Thomas" isn't something unheard of amongst Christians and Non-Christians alike. Apostle John recorded how our Lord appeared to his disciples, affirming the fact that he had defeated death as he had earlier promised and how Thomas, who wasn't with them when the Lord came, doubted it when told by the others.

                        In John 20:25, Thomas said:

            "Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails and put my fingers into the print of the nails and put my hands into his side, I will not believe,"

                        Obviously, Thomas doubted that the Lord had resurrected. He probably could have felt that Jesus could not have come have back to life after being bruised, beaten, given a very heavy cross to carry to Golgotha, nailed with huge nails by huge Roman soldiers and even after being dead and buried; his tomb, sealed and watched by Roman guards 24-7 intending to avoid any possible resurrection. Any average man would immediately abandon every hope of ever seeing Jesus again alive and that was exactly what Thomas was on that day; an average man, not a firm-in-faith believer.

                        Thomas gave a challenge in John 20:25 to see if his friends were just making the story up and when it was confirmed to him; when he witnessed the full presence, touched and sight of the resurrected Lord whom he doubted, he answered and said to him "My Lord and my God."

                        Now, the opposite of doubt is faith and belief thus, Thomas' words at John 20:28 are best seen as a statement of faith in contrast to his initial disbelief. He realized that he was standing in the presence of his Lord and his God - whom he initially doubted had defeated death.

                                    "And Thomas answered and said to him 'My Lord and my God'"

                                    APEKRITHÊ THÔMAS KAI EIPEN AUTWi hO KYRIOS MOU KAI hO THEOS MOU

                                    apekriqh QwmaV kai eipen autw `O KurioV mou kai `o QeoV mou

                                    Thomas answered and said to him 'the Lord of me and the God of me' (Greek literal translation)

                        This is an incredible confession. We see a doubting Thomas who once said "If I don't see and touch him I WILL NOT believe" taking a u-turn in his decision and now confessing to the fact that Jesus is his Lord and his God. This is a lesson to us believers today, which Jesus emphasized in vs.29 saying: "Is it because you see me you believe? Blessed are those who don't see and yet believe". Amen.

                       

                                                                        OBJECTIONS TO JOHN 20:28

                        The above cited passage is a very good lesson for latter generations. Even Non-Christians agree that such faith (i.e. believing without seeing) is an essential aspect in most religions today. You can't serve God without faith. But even with the incredible message, some people, however, are offended by Thomas' words in vs.28; not with "My Lord" but with "My God". Some theologies would be deeply cut by that confession if Thomas was indeed referring to Jesus Christ as his God, so in one way or another, they must make sure that Jesus is not Thomas' God in this passage by creating as many excuses as possible to evade (and deviate others) from the true teaching of that passage.

                        To some, Jesus is neither "a god" nor "God" (not even "divine") thus, having Thomas refer to Jesus as "My God" would be a total creature worship. Some, however, might not object to Jesus being called "G/god" or "divine" but they strongly object to Jesus being called "God Almighty" thus, having Thomas refer to Jesus as "My God" would be giving God's exclusive title to another G/god which would undoubtably mean that Thomas' God is not God Almighty.

                        The problems are huge and debilitating, therefore, the best way to avoid the verdict of this passage is to make sure "My God" doesn't refer to Jesus, else, they are doomed to a theological catastrophe, so to speak.

                        Seeing the problems John 20:28 creates for their theology, objections have been raised in response to those who view John 20:28 to mean that Jesus is indeed Thomas' God. They are under the following category:

·                     It is an exclamation

·                     "My Lord" refers to Jesus while "My God" refers to the Father.

·                     John 20:31 would be an anti-climax

·                     "HO THEOS MOU" in Thomas' usage means "My Ruler" not literally "My God"

·                     "My God" should be understood in a lesser sense

·                     "KURIOS" is in nominative case,  not vocative

·                     "We cannot know exactly what Thomas meant"- Rolf Furuli

                        It seems to me that the above objections are more or less the best shots most objectors have been able to offer (so far, at least) but unfortunately for them, these objections are very easily refuted as we will find out below. However, there could be other objections that I have not seen but by God's will and grace, if I do see another, I'd add it up to the updated part of this paper or make it a part 2 if voluminous

                                                                            OBJECTIONS REFUTED

            Like I earlier said, the above objections are easily refuted even without quoting much scholars and grammarians.

·                     AN OPEN-AIR EXCLAMATION?

                        Most objectors use this as an exuse. They claim, usually, that Thomas' statement in vs.28 is an open-air exclamation out of surprise just as people today out of anguish, surprise, e.t.c. say "Oh my God!". Unfortunately for them, the problems with this allegation are numerous and they even contradict Thomas' beliefs. Firstly, even if Thomas' words in vs.28 were an exclamation, the fact that it was an answer, a response and a reply and was said "to Jesus," it was undoubtably directed to Jesus. A perfect example is when Mary magdalene went to Jesus' tomb on the first day of the week, she found that Jesus' body wasn't there. Startled, she ran to Peter and others and told them about it who in turn, went with her to the tomb and found her account to be true. Mary was weeping outside the tomb, and then she saw two angels. "Woman, why are you weeping?" They asked, "Because they have taken away my Lord and I do not know where they have laid him" She replied. Now, she must have been convinced that Jesus hadn't resurrected just as Thomas didn't believe that the Lord had resurrected. After she had spoken to the angels, she saw Jesus standing there but she didn't know that he was the One (of course, she wasn't expect him to be "standing there", she was expecting him to be "laying there" in his tomb) so she was asked the same question by Jesus, the same she was asked by the two angels. So when she gave her answer, Jesus replied "Mary!", she turned and said to him "Rabboni!" (which means, teacher or master) - Read John 20:11-18.

                        Now, this is very similar to the encounter of Thomas with the resurrected Jesus Christ. She expected Jesus to be in the tomb ("doubting" that he had resurrected) and then all of a sudden, she saw him alive. She said to him "Rabboni!" just as Thomas and said to him "My Lord and my God!" (vs.28). They were undoubtably both statements of faith and/or realization; Mary Magdalene, who was expecting to see Jesus Christ laying in his tomb, came to realize that Jesus was alive, resurrected and not taken away from the tomb. Thomas, in like manner; who didn't believe that Jesus had resurrected, came to realize and believe that Jesus was (and is) indeed resurrected and alive. Thus, Mary Magdalene was staring at her "Rabboni" just as Thomas was staring at his "Lord" and his "God". Neither of both statements were open-air exclamations as objectors posit about vs.28, they, even if exclamations, were in reference to whom they spoke.

                        Furthermore, the objectors did a very bad job by comparing "Oh my God!" in today's standard with Biblical standard, without citing at least, a verse in the Scripture to bolster such stance. In the Bible, an open-air exclamtion that includes "God" is blasphemous. Jews, in ancient and even in modern times regard(ed) such exclamations as ungodly and sinful. They even do not spell "God" but would rather have it as "G-d" just to show you how they approach calling God, even to their writing. They don't joke with it.

                        Thomas was a devout Jew and using an exclamation such as "Oh my God!" (which are even regarded as swear words) would have hurt Jesus who would have in turn, in the next verse, corrected him for breaking God's commandment (in Exodus 20:7). But Jesus said: "Is it because you see me you believe? Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe." vs.29. Thus, interpreting Thomas' words as an open-air exclamation is like claiming that Jesus let Thomas' sin go unreprimanded. As we have seen, even if Thomas' words were an exclamation, it is a directed response in reply to Jesus.

·                     "MY GOD" REFERS TO THE FATHER WHILE "MY LORD" REFERS TO THE SON?

                        When the "exclamation" position is refuted or doesn't sound satisfactory, objectors sometimes claim:

1. That the title "My God" refers to the Father;

2. That Thomas was directing his address to the Father through his image, Jesus;

3. That the word "and" (KAI) breaks the sentence into two different addresses directed at two different addressees;

4. That Jesus is nowhere else called "My God"; e.t.c.

            The above claims are easily refuted by the context the verses they sight and the Scripture. They often cite John 14:9 (he that has seen me has seen the Father) as proof that Thomas was referring to the Father not Jesus. So I'll start by explaining what Jesus meant before exposing the error in their biased presuppositions.

            Jesus wasn't telling Philip that he was the Father (cf. John 14:28) neither was he telling him that "whatever you call me, you call my Father". No. Philip requested, "Show us the Father, that would be sufficient for us" and of course, no one has seen or can see the Father (John 1:18; Exodus 33:19). Jesus must have been taken aback, surprised and must have been like "Haven't I taught  you FAITH?". Oh yes, faith. If Philip's faith were strong enough, he would have seen the Father in Jesus not wishing to see the Father in himself. It is worth noting that Jesus earlier said to Thomas "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). Jesus wasn't saying that no one addresses the Father except through him. If Jesus was teaching his disciples to pray to/address/praise God by saying their prayers/addresses/praises through-to him, then what was the point in telling them, "But when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut the door, pray to the Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees the secret will reward you openly" (Matthew 6:6-13)? In all obviousness, if Thomas were referring to the Father, he wouldn't have "answered and said (it) to Jesus".

            What Jesus meant in John 14:6-9 is like a man being asked "Please sir, where is Jerusalem?" and then he answers by showing him/her the road leading to it. To "come to" the Father, you must come THROUGH Jesus but to come through Jesus, you have to come TO Jesus, that is to say, he is not some phantom that you could pass through to get to someone else but you have to come to Jesus who would in turn, lead you to the Father. A passage that clearly mirrors Jesus' statement in John 14:6-9 is Luke 10:16 where Jesus, referring to seventy disciples, said: "He who hears you hears me, he who rejects you rejects me and he who rejects me rejects the one who sent me". In this very passage, Jesus is saying three things:

a. He who hears you hears me

b. He who rejects you rejects, and thus, by implication,

c. He who rejects you rejects the one who sent me.

Could it get any clearer?

What then would you call a believer who then walks up to those seventy disciples saying unto them "My Lord and my God" (on referring to the Father) or "My Master and my Owner" (on referring to Jesus, Jude 4)? Luke 10:16 is absolutely no excuse for a believer to call unto a disciple as "My Master and my Owner" just as John 14:6-9 is not an excuse for Thomas to call unto a lesser god as "My Lord and my God". Thus, it is either Jesus is indeed Thomas' God (monotheist) or Thomas' god (polytheist-henotheist, against the first commandment, Exodus 20:3).

Sometimes, one just has to wonder why it is only John 20:28 that gets applied with the purported John 14:6-9 Law. Ever wondered why they never do the same with other titles such as "Son of God", "Son of David", "Rabbi" "Rabboni", e.t.c? Why must it only be "My God"? The bias is conspiciously written all over.

            Moreover, both John 20:11-18 and John 20:27-29 are records of conversations:

Jesus said unto Mary.... Jesus said unto Thomas

Mary turned and said unto Jesus... Thomas answered and said unto Jesus... e.t.c.

Without any "third party" inclusion whatsoever, Claiming that Thomas was referring to the Father in John 20:28 is as silly as claiming that Jesus was referring to Peter in John 20:16. Jesus addressed and referred to Magdalene when he said "Mary!" (just as He addressed and referred to Thomas when he said "Put you hands here") and so, in like manner, Mary addressed and referred to Jesus when she said "Rabboni!" (just as Thomas addressed and referred to Jesus when he said "My Lord and my  God!"). As simple as that!

            Secondly, claiming that Thomas was referring to God by calling upon is image is no different from a Catholic showing reverence to God, Jesus, Mary and the Saints by looking upon their statues on Earth- an act the scripture strongly disapproves. Thomas was a Jew, not a pagan. If he wanted to call upon God, he simply would have said it to God either through prayer or through praise (Matthew 6:6) not by saying it to Jesus. He was a monotheist, aware of making such implications (Exodus 23:13), he wouldn't have attempted such a dangerous thing unless he was speaking to God, not just another lesser god. It would be absolute idoltry or paganism to have Thomas call upon God by means of his image when he was taught to leave by faith (believing without seeing), thus, objection II-1 and II-2 are no objections at all.

            Some, however, have taken an extra step into going as far as claiming that the conjunction "and" (Gk. "KAI") separates the two titles and also the addressees. They claim that since Thomas said "My Lord", added an "and", and then said "My God", it means that he was addressing two people. This is the kind of nonsense the Scripture disgracefully refutes:

a. David, speaking to God, calls him "My God and my Lord" (HO THEOS MOU KAI KYRIOS MOU, Psalms 35:23, 34:23 LXX). How many "addressees" are being addressed here? One.

b. The twenty-four Elders fell down before the One who lives for ever saying "You are worthy to recieve praise, glory... our Lord and our God..." (HO KYRIOS KAI HO THEOS HEMON, Revelation 4:11). How many "addressees"are being addressed? One.

These alone take the Bull by the horn, thus, going deeper into details would be more like time-wasting. The argument is out of ignorance of the Greek and even English. Two (and many more) tites co-joined with "AND" can refer to one person. Talk about Jesus being called "King of kings AND Lord of lords" (Revelation 19:16) and David calling his God "My King AND my God!" (Psalms 5:2; 84:3) "My Rock and my Fortress!" (Psalms 31:3; 71:3) and "My Rock and my Salvation" (Psalms 62:2, 6).

            Lastly, whenever objectors are asked why they don't want "My God" in John 20:28 to refer to Jesus, they sometimes claim that since Jesus is nowhere else called "My God", then He isn't referred to by Thomas. Even if Jesus is nowhere else called with that combination, so what? To my best of knowledge, and from the view point of those who object to Jesus being called God, Jesus is called "The First and the Last" only once. Does that mean that He isn't referred to? The argument is weak, as always. Even if God is called "My Lord" a thousand times, and Jesus is called "My Lord" only once, that wouldn't mean that Jesus is therefore not "My Lord". Looking upon the New World Translation, Jesus is called "First and Last" only once while the others refer to the Father, need I say more? Jesus is called "The Bread of Life" and "The Bright and morning star" only once, it makes no sense at all to assume that they therefore don't refer to Him because of that,

·                     JOHN 20:31, AN ANTI-CLIMAX?

            Acting like they don't know what Trinitarianism teaches, objectors would claim that "The God" (in vs.28) cannot refer to Jesus since He is later said to be "The Son of the God" (in vs.31 Greek). They often claim that it would be an anti-climax to have Jesus called "The God" and then called "The Son of the God". This logic is worth an *SMH* in the sense that:

1.) No Trinitarian denies the Sonship of Jesus Christ to the Father; and,

2.) Trinitarians teach that the substance/essense/nature of being "The God" also dwells in the Son, Jesus Christ.

John 20:31 is in no way an anti climax. The above point is a result of a deliberate straw-man. In Trinitarianism, the nature of being "ho Theos" dwells in the Father as well as the Son and the Holy Spirit. Objectors fail to see the concept trinitarians follow. In the Trinitarian teaching, God exists in the coherence of His Word and His Spirit to Himself and this "coherence" is called Trinity.

If you still feel that John 20:31 poses a set-back to Trinitarians who view John 20:28 to refer to Jesus as "The God", consider the following:

- The Father is "The First and the Last" (Isaiah 44:6)

- Jesus is the Son of the Father (John 8:54)

- By implication, Jesus is "the Son OF the First and the Last".

From the objectors' view point, does it make sense that we conclude that Jesus cannot therefore be "The First and the Last"? No, He is "THE First and THE Last" (Revelation 1:10-13). Is it then an anti-climax that Jesus is called "The First and the Last" (in chap. 1) and then in chap. 22, the Father, of whom He is Son, is called "The First and the Last", too? It is self-revealing. The logic is very faulty.

            The Father was pleased to allow his fullness dwell in the Son (Colossians 1:19) and the fullness of the Deity (theotes) dwells bodily (Colossians 2:9) such that "All may honour the Son just as they honour the Father" (John 5:23) and that "All that the Father has are the Son's and all that the Son has are the Father's" (John 17:10). It is thus, evident and not a surprise that John writes about Jesus being "The First and the Last" even though He is the Son of "The First and the Last" for the sake (I see) that it doesn't surprise us why Thomas would call Jesus his Lord and his God even though He is the Son of the Father who is also "My God and my Lord" (Psalms 35:23). The more we read the Scriptures, the more we understand how God "was pleased to allow his fullness dwell in the Son" (Colossians 1:19) and why I believe John 1:1 to be qualitative: "What God was, the Word was". John 20:31 is not an anti-climax to John 20:28. It explains it in the light and understanding of Colossians 1:19; 2:9.

·                     "MY GOD" MEANS "MY RULER"?

            The most pitiable and pathetic argument I've so far from these objectors is the claim that Thomas meant "My Ruler" rather or by the use of "My God". Most of them cite Paul's letter:

            "Whose end is destruction, who god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame..." (Philippians 3:19)

            This awfully pathetic argument posited by some objectors tend to lack the following information:

a. That Paul was talking about enemies of Christ;

b. That the term "god" doesn't necessarily mean an idol or a deity but anything worshiped and/or given great reverence.

            "Brethren, join my examples and note those who so walk as you have for a pattern. For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now, tell you even weeping that there are the enemies of the cross of Christ. Whose end is destruction, who god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame..." (vs.17-19)

Now, how does it sound to take an anti Christ concept to apply to believers? More over, who said that "whose god is their belly" shouldn't literally mean "god"? Anything you put above God or equal with him is literally your "God", indirectly or directly but IS. There were those who preferred lusting after money for their greedy bellies to going to share the gospel to lost souls. Their bellies had taken most of their lives from them, they lost interest in God's matters, they served their bellies better than God. THEIR BELLIES WERE LITERALLY THEIR GODS!

The question these objectors fail to answer is why would Thomas use the words "ho Theos mou" (the God of me) to mean "the Ruler of me" when, in fact, he would have used "ho Arche mou" or similar. Why Theos, an exclusive title for God? It is important to know that the term "My God" appears 135 times in the Bible and whenever it is said by a Jew, it always referred to his/her God unless John 20:28 is an exception. Objectors come up with absurd claims whenever is comes to making sure that Jesus is not God, this, therefore, shouldn't be a surprise.

The act of referring to your ruler with "ho Theos mou" was a practice of ancient pagan Romans who used "My God" and "Ruler" interchangeably for their Emperor Demetrius. No true believer does (or should do) such things. God's command explicitly says that He is your God, have none other but him (Exodus 20:3). If you call another person your God, you have broken the command- no excuse. Let "My God" be "My God" and let "My Ruler" be "My Ruler" and don't blaspheme God by accusing His disciples of pagan, Roman practices.

·                     WE CANNOT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THOMAS MEANT?

            This is Rolf Furuli speaking, telling us (I guess) that to understand it, we must take a time machine back in time and ask Thomas "What did you mean?". Yet, he would not have Jesus be God in this passage even he claims that we cannot know what Thomas meant. He is Arian of course, what did you expect? To him, the passage is only understood by the speaker but yet, the Trinitarian opinion is ruled out for his Arian doctrine, why?

When Mary Magdalene turned and said to Jesus "Rabboni!" what did she mean?

When Jesus said to her "Mary!" what did he mean?

We don't need a PhD to know that Mary was referring to Jesus as "Rabboni" and she was revealing that she was standing right in front of him. It is only when one presumes that Jesus is not "Rabboni" that one ignores the clarity of this context. The same goes for John 20:28, Thomas vividly answered and said to Jesus "My Lord and my God". He was referring to Jesus and was revealing that he was standing right in front of him. This is too clear, only bias of the highest order could cloud one's mind into rejecting such a simple, outright statement. Jesus was, is and will always be his Lord and his God just as he was, is and will always be Mary's Rabboni.

            For the benefit of you readers, let us analyze the other passages with the same construction.

                                                ANSWERED AND SAID TO HIM

                                                     [APEKRITHÊ... EIPEN AUTWi]

            Objectors have taken real pains to see if somehow, they could establish a distinction between "SPOKEN TO" and "DIRECTED TO" but could not (absolutely not!).

            There are 108 occurances of a form of EIPON followed by the dative AUTW(i) in the New Testament. 74 are EIPEN AUTW(i), 25 occur with a form of APOKRINONAI, ten of these are preceded by APEKRITHÊ. John uses EIPEN AUTW(i) 17 times. Checking all 108 occurances, there is never a case where an address is spoken "to him" (AUTWi) and directed to another outside the dative. Even when it appears as LEGONTES, which serves the same function as "EIPEN"- they always refer "to him".

- Answered and said "to him" (exactly like John 20:28):

Genesis 27:39; 31:14; 2 kings 1:11; Matthew 12:48; 16:17; 25:26; 26:33; 26:63; Mark 7:28; 10:20; 10:51; Luke 4:8; 17:37; John 1:48; 1:50; 3:3; 3:9; 3:10; 7:52; 8:39; 9:34; 13:7; 14:23; 18:38.

- Answered ans said "to" other pronouns:

To me: Deuteronomy 1:41; Zechariah 4:5; 6:5.

To her: Ruth 2:11; Matthew 15:28; Luke 1:35; Luke 10:41; John 4:10; 4:13

To it: Mark 11:14

To them: 2 Kings 1:12; 1 Chronicle 12:17; Matthew 11:4; 12:39; 13:11; 13:37; 15:3; 16:2; 17:11; 19:4; 21:21; 21:24; 22:29; 24:4; 27:21; Mark 6:37; 7:6; 10:3; 10:5; 11:29; 14:20; 14:48; Luke 8:21; 19:40; 20:3 John 2:19; 6:29; 6:43; 7:21; 8:14; 9:30; Acts 4:19.

- Answered and said "to" nouns:

Genesis 27:37; 31:43; Numbers 22:18; 23:16; 2 Samuel 14:18; 1 Kings 2:22;13:6; Ezra 10:2; Esther 7:5; Daniel 3:24; Zechariah 6:4; Mark 11:33.

            In all the above, the words were all spoken and directed to the dative noun or pronoun. Why should John 20:28 be any different? Why can't "know exactly" what Thomas, a monotheist Jew, meant by his words? Could it just be plain bias and bigotry to Scripturally proven facts? The message is crystal-clear to anyone seeking truth without bias unless you are among those Jesus talked about in John 9:41 then we could equate you with the bigoted Pharisees. Thomas answered and said to him "My Lord and my God". Mary Magdalene tuned and said to him "Rabboni", need I say more?

·                     "KURIOS" IN vs.28 IS IN NOMINATIVE CASE, SO WHAT?

            Whenever an objector comes to a dead end, with his/her legs tied as to what else to do with John 20:28, they seem to have no other option other than to distract those who aren't familiar with Greek grammar by creating some bizarre rules. They have to admit that this line of argument tends to be their "best shot" and the one most objective apologists use as "standard".

            These objectors would have us believe that if Thomas was addressing Jesus in vs.28, that he would have used the vocatival "KURIE" rather than the nominative "KURIOS" (which are both "Lord" in English). Of course, this argument is very weak and I can assure you, it fatally hangs on a thread in so many ways.

- In John 13:13, Jesus said that his disciples call him "KURIOS" and commends them. Obviously, if there was some sort of distinction between "KURIOS" and "KURIE" in terms of address, he would have said to so here.

- Jesus is called RABBI numerous times. RABBI is indeclinable- it's nominative in ALL cases.

- Revelation 4:11 demonstrates that the twenty-four Elders are comfortable addressing their God with the nominative form of address, just as is Thomas:

            "You are worthy our Lord and our God (HO KURIOS KAI HO THEOS HEMON), to receive glory and honour..."

            The message is pretty straight forward and it is obvious  that what is being done by Thomas in John 20:28 is the same thing being done by the twenty-four Elders in Revelation 4:11.

- Other passages that closely resembles Thomas' statement in John 20:28 is David's own declaration:

·                    "Stir up Yourself, and awake to my vindication, to my cause, my God and my Lord (HO THEOS MOU KAI HO KURIOS MOU)" (Psalms 35:23, LXX 34:32)

"KURIOS" and "THEOS" are in nominative case (as it is in John 20:28) and surely refers to God WHOM the Psalmist SPOKE TO, "His God and his Lord".

·                    "Give heed to the voice of my cry, my King and my God (HO BASILEUS MOU KAI HO THEOS MOU) for to you will I  pray" (Psalms 5:2)

·                    "Even the sparrow has found a home, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young-- even your altars, O LORD of hosts, my King and my God (HO BASILEUS MOU KAI HO THEOS MOU)" (Psalms 84:3)

"BASILEUS" and "THEOS" in the above verses are in nominative cases but they still refer to God, to whom David spoke to "His King and his God".

None of these suggest a kind of third party, open-air exclamation or whatever objectors think they are insinuating. David was referring to his Lord, his King and his God just as Thomas was also referring to his Lord and his God in John 20:28. Even a-five-year-old child, still in his elementary won't find this hard to grasp, yet objectors, among whom we'd find those in their forties, fifties and above agreeing to get spoon-fed by such terrible line of argument.

In fact, the vocative and nominative forms are even used interchangeably. For example:

- Jesus is called "HUIOS DAVID" in Matthew's geneology which is nominative but in Mark, "Son of David" is vocative.

- On the cross, Jesus cries out: "My God, my God why have you forsaken me?" but two writers have different cases for it:

a. Matthew 27:46 has "THEE MOU THEE MOU" which is vocative.

b. Mark 15:34 has "HO THEOS MOU HO THEOS MOU" which is nominative.

Yet, none of these suggest a sort of distinction between "THEE" and "ho THEOS" in terms of address. It is obvious that even with different cases, they still have their original meaning and message to pass across. Thus, the baseless stance of distingishing between "Spoken to" from "direction" is still hanging fatally on a thread.

·                     JESUS IS "GOD" IN A LESSER SENSE?

            Not all objectors cling to this view through but the famous ones that raise this point are none other than those called Jehovah's Witnesses (and perhaps, other henotheist-polytheists as well). The point, when applied to John 20:28, sounds utterly absurd especially if that objector claims to be a monotheist.

            JWs often teach that THEOS in John 20:28 means "God" but in a lesser sense:

Here is an article authored by the Watchtower concerning John 20:28,

"Does Thomas' exclamation at John 20:28 prove that Jesus is truly God?

John 20:28 (RS) reads: "Thomas answered him, 'My Lord and my God'"

There is no objection to referring to Jesus as "God" if this is what Thomas had in mind. Such would be in harmony with Jesus' own quotation from Psalms in which powerful men, judges, were addressed as "gods" (John 10:34, 35, RS; Ps. 82:1-6) Of course, Christ occupies a position far higher than such men. Because of the uniqueness of his position in relation to Jehovah, at John 1:18 (NW) Jesus is referred to as "the only-begotten god" (See also Ro, By.) Isaiah 9:6 (RS) also prophetically describes Jesus as "Mighty God" but not as the Almighty God. All of this is in harmony with Jesus' being described as "a god" or "divine", at John 1:1 (NW, AT)"

[Taken from their official website, http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989240]

Even after reading the above article, one doesn't really need to move any further on this, all you just need is picture Thomas calling a lesser god "My God" and still remain a monotheist.

            The above claim is "...an equivocation on the word "god" based on the presuppostion that god, when applied to the Father means God and when applied to the Son means god. A bias presupposition that is! To which their is no lexical support. If one is a monotheist, John 20:28 isan incredible confession but if you are a polytheist, it is no big deal. He is just one the gods like in greek mythology." - Robert Hommel rightly said.

I'd have love to stop here and allow the readers decide for themselves but I've just decided to bring to notice some dishonesty depicted in the article written by the Watchtower.

Compare these two statements:

Thomas' statement: "And Thomas answered and said to him 'My Lord and my God'"

What the Watchtower is addressing: "...There is no objection to referring to Jesus as "God" if this is what Thomas had in mind..."

SPOT THE DIFFERENCE?

The Watchtower tells you that there is no objection to referring to Jesus as "God" if that is what Thomas had in mind but they CLEVERLY avoided telling you that what Thomas was saying is not just "God" but "My God(!!!!!)". I could bet my last penny that they didn't mean "There is no objection to referring to Jesus as "MY God" if this is what Thomas had in mind", their theology would be ruined! As they always do, they quietly got the personal pronoun "MY" out of the way in order to give some soothing relief their followers who have just unknowingly been shown that their theology is in no opposition to henotheism. The word "God" and "MY God" actually mean different things. "God" could be any G/god but my/our/your/his/her/their God is a very personal statement which undoubtably refers to one's OWN God). If the Watchtower do not object to Thomas calling Jesus his OWN God, then I wonder why they still have the theology they have today. For obvious reasons, they had to run away from the pronoun "MY" (as they do other scriptures they don't like).

            Besides all these already-refuted objections, I have not seen any reason not to believe that Jesus is called Lord and God in John20:28. I dearly urge readers to be independent researchers. Don't let anyone do your research for you. God's truth vindicates truth seekers and sets them free but bigots will remain where they are (in darkness) until they change.

STAY BLESSED