Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
There is significant debate about the meaning and import of Thomas' exclamation in John 20:28 of
"My Lord and my God!"
including what the proper understanding is of both significant terms, 'Lord' and 'God'.
Having said that, assuming Thomas is claiming that Jesus is God, why does Thomas add 'my' to 'God' - if Jesus is God, is He not someone else's God?
In answering this question, i have avoided New Testament scriptures with the exception of Jesus claim that He was God.
In Jesus time, only the old Testament existed and not in the form we know them today. Clearly, those who knew the scriptures were well aware of the relationship between an individual and His (or Her) God, as it was well established in numerous texts.
Consider the following Old Testament quotations from various individuals describing a "personal" God...
Exodus 15:2
The LORD is my strength and my defense; he has become my salvation. He is my God, and I will praise him, my father's God, and I will exalt him.
Daniel 9:4
I prayed to the LORD my God and confessed: "Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who love him and keep his commandments,
Psalm 18:2
The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.
Isaiah 12:2
Surely God is my salvation; I will trust and not be afraid. The LORD, the LORD himself, is my strength and my defense; he has become my salvation.
Genesis 24:48
and I bowed down and worshiped the LORD. I praised the LORD, the God of my master Abraham, who had led me on the right road to get the granddaughter of my master's brother for his son.
From my own Christian perspective, Jesus is "My Personal Saviour". Yes he is a man for all people so to speak, however, unlike a King or Prime Minister, Jesus door is open and we communicate directly and personally on a regular basis.
So when Thomas exclaimed, "My Lord and My God", he was stating in that moment he finally realised that the very man he had been following was indeed God! My interpretation of the Biblical narrative concerning Thomas is that prior to this moment, after Jesus had died, Thomas had lost his faith..a faith in Jesus prior claim during his ministry that he was God. That faith was now restored.
I think generally all Christians believe in an eternal God (one who also prexisted eternally). Now listen to what Jesus said concerning himself about this...
John 8:58,59
58“Truly, truly, I tell you,” Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
59 At this, they picked up stones to throw at Him. But Jesus was hidden and went out of the temple area.
There is only one reason why they (in this case Jewish Pharisees, see vs 13) would pick up rocks to stone anyone in the above event, Jesus was claiming to be "the" pre-existing eternal God, a crime punishable by stoning to death!
"My God" occurs frequently in the NT as a mark of the personal relationship between a person and God, eg, 2 Tim 1:3, Phm 1:4, 1 Cor 1:4, Pil 1:3, 4:19, 2 Cor 12;21, Rom 1:8, etc. We see the same thing in the OT and is usually in the Phrase, "the LORD my God", Ps 104:1, 140:6, Dan 9:20, Ezra 9:5, 2 Chron 2:4, etc.
Similarly, "your God" (always referiing to the LORD) occurs frequently in the OT and usually in the phrase, "the LORD your God", Deut 10:12, 17, 12:11, 18, Josh 23;13, 1 Chron 22:19, Jer 42:20, etc.
The phrase, "My God" is closely related (as per John 20:28) with another phrase, "My Lord" which always refers to Jesus in the NT - Matt 22:44, Mark 12:36, Luke 20:42, Acts 2:34, John 20:13, 28, Luke 1:43, Phil 3:8. These generally allude to OT references such as Ps 35:23 (LXX) and Ps 110:1.
Thus, these personalised versions of "My God" and "My Lord" are common in the Bible.
The phrase "my God" uses a possessive adjective in the first person singular which shows that the speaker (Thomas) regards Jesus to be his personal God, which means that he believes that Jesus himself is whom he will worship or whom he trusts for salvation. This is very similar to 2 Peter 1:1 wherein Jesus is "our God", a phrase with a possessive adjective in the first person plural. In this case, the church collectively acknowledge Jesus to be both their God and Saviour.
I will take a slightly different approach to this verse so that the community understands there is scholarly debate over this verse and its intended usage.
The debate surrounds the cultural context within which the Gospel of John was written. John lived and wrote in Ephesus which was in the Roman province of Asia Minor. If one understands the dominant cultural features of Asia Minor, John's gospel starts to make more sense.
As with the other Gospels, we are not exactly sure of the date of their composition. Many scholars place John as the last Gospel to be composed - possibly in the late '80s or early '90s of the first century. (although you should know that not everyone agrees. see Robinson, The Priority of John for a counter-argument).
So if you assume - as many do - that John wrote his Gospel from Ephesus in the latter decades of the first-century then we need to know something about the Imperial Cult and the Caesar at the time, Domitian.
Ephesus, in John's day, was ground-zero for the Imperial Cult and the sanctioned worship of Emperor Domitian.
Domitian insisted on being called 'Dominus et Deus' 'Lord and God.'
Colin Hemer in The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their local Setting writes:
"It is well known that Domitian required to be addressed as domius et deus (Suetonius, Dom. 13; Martial, Epig. 9.56.3), a title corresponding to that applied to Jesus in Thomas' confession (John 20:28)"
Both the Gospel of John and Revelation are set against the declaration by the Roman emperors - particularly Domitian - that they are in fact the divine rulers of the cosmos. John's gospel also refutes many of the main gods or goddesses in the region of Asia Minor as well (Aclepisu, Dionysus, or Demeter).
John would be including this declaration by Thomas at this point in his Gospel in order to directly refute the claims of the emperor Domitian.
It is important to note the original cultural context of the Gospels - and particularly John because John includes many stories not found in the other three. In the first century, the Imperial Cult used the language of "Savior," "Good News," "Advent," and "Son of God." You can read the Priene Calendar Inscription here.
See the following for more info:
John 20:28 verse is grammatically linked to John 1:49.
The lack of the phrase "you are" in John 20:28 compared to John 1:49, means the new faith of Thomas and consequently, of the recent Christian Church, which was of circumcision: In Jesus, there was the theophany of the Trinity, the essence, the complete substance of divinity.
I hope it was well explained, I really wanted to explain everything to you in the English language, but the difficulty is enormous.
