Jesus as God:
Explicit References
Paragraph 2 of Chapter 4
in the KNOWLEDGE book states:
…Others
have distorted Jesus’ role, worshipping him as Almighty God…[1]
The WTBTS asserts that believing
Jesus is Almighty God is a distortion and elaborates in “Those Who Are Called ‘Gods,’” stating:
Although Jesus never
claimed to be God, as Jehovah’s appointed ruler he is identified in Isaiah’s prophecy by the terms “Mighty
God” and “Prince of Peace”…
Yet, a person may
ask, ‘In what sense is Jesus a “Mighty God,” and didn’t the apostle John say that Jesus is himself
God?’ In the King James version of the Bible, John 1:1 reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God.” Some argue that this means that “the Word”…is Almighty God himself…
If this verse were
interpreted to mean Jesus was himself God Almighty, it would contradict the preceding statement, “the Word was with
God.” Someone who is “with” another person cannot be the same as that other person.[2]
First and foremost, I refer
the reader to the Athanasian Creed, which states, “there is one person of the Father, another of the Son,
and another of the Holy Spirit.”[3] Trinitarians do not believe Jesus is the “same” person as the Father, as suggested by the WTBTS above. Being
distinct persons, God the Father can be with God the Son and both still be God. As such, there is no contradiction
whatsoever with the Word was God (KJV) translation.
Looking at John 1:1, Adam
Clarke wrote that Jesus, the Word, is “…no subordinate being, no second to the Most High, but the supreme
eternal Jehovah.”[4]
Albert Barnes stated:
… Lest it should be supposed that he was a different
and inferior being, here John states that “he was God.” There is no more unequivocal declaration in the Bible
than this, and there could be no stronger proof that the sacred writer meant to affirm that the Son of God was equal with
the Father…
… There is no evidence that John intended to use the word “God” in an inferior sense. It
is not “the Word was a god,” or “the Word was ‘like God,’” but the Word “was God.”
He had just used the word “God” as evidently applicable to Yahweh, the true God; and it is absurd to suppose that
he would in the same verse, and without any indication that he was using the word in an inferior sense, employ it to denote
a being altogether inferior to the true God…[5] (Emphasis mine.)
In the New World Translation
with References, Appendix 6A, NWT translators explain the translation of John 1:1c, “the Word was a god,” saying:
…the Greek word
Θεὸς (the·os’) is a singular predicate noun
occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·os’ . The God
with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ὸ Θεόν , that is, the·os’ preceded by the definite article ho.
This is an articular the·os’. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points
to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone.
Therefore, John’s statement that the Word or Logos was “a god” or “divine” or “godlike”
does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it
does not identify him as one and the same as God himself.
In the Greek text there are many cases of singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such
as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article
“a” before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite
article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article “a”
is inserted before the anarthrous Θεὸς in the predicate of John 1:1 to
make it read “a god.” The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering.[6]
The NWT translators assert
that translating the anarthrous theos as “a god” is demanded because anarthrous predicate nouns that precede
the verb point to a quality rather than an identity.
I must preface all subsequent
remarks with a word of warning: I loathe Greek grammar. For the most part, I make a concerted effort to be thorough in my
Bible studies, as exhaustive as I can possibly be given my resources and lack of formal seminary education, but I positively
cannot stand Greek grammar. I cannot state it more plainly: given my druthers, I’d rather take a roto-rooter to my small
intestines via my left nostril than address the grammar of John 1:1c here. Nor do I feel either the roto-rooter J or addressing the grammar in detail necessary. Many, many sites on the net as
well as print resources pick apart the grammar of John 1:1 with happy abandon.[7] Have I read these resources? Yes. Do I understand them? Yes. Do I want to explain them to any degree of detail here? No.
(See preceding roto-rooter comment.) I prefer instead of rely on the expertise of Greek scholars. For a detailed analysis
of the grammar of John 1:1c, I therefore refer the reader to the resources indicated in endnote #7. Otherwise…
Vine’s Complete
Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words disagrees
with the WTBTS:
…it is usual
to employ the article with a proper name, when mentioned a second time. There are, of course, exceptions to this, as when
the absence of the article serves to lay stress upon, or give precision to, the character or nature of what is expressed
in the noun. A notable instance of this is in John 1:1, “and the Word was
God”; here a double stress is on theos, by the absence of the article and by the emphatic position. To translate
it literally, “a god was the Word,” is entirely misleading. Moreover, that “the Word” is the subject
of the sentence, exemplifies the rule that the subject is to be determined by its having the article when the predicate is
anarthrous (without the article).[8] (Emphasis mine.)
John Gill also states:
…nor is it any
objection to the proper deity of Christ that the article is here wanting; since when the word is applied to the Father, it
is not always used and even in this chapter, (John 1:6, 13, 18) and which shows, that the word “God” is not the
subject but the predicate of this proposition…[9]
David Guzik wrote of the
NWT’s “the Word was a god” translation of John 1:1c rather extensively – and emphatically –
stating:
What about the
Watchtower's New World Translation here? This Jehovah's Witness translation reads like this: "In [the] beginning the
Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Their translation is used to deny the teaching that Jesus is
God. Is it a correct translation?
i. The claim
of the Watchtower defending their translation of John 1:1-2 is that because before the second time "God" is used in the passage,
no article appears (it is written "God" and not "the God"). In answer to this approach to Greek grammar and translation, we
can only refer to the multitude of other times in the New Testament where "God" appears without the article. If the Watchtower
were honest and consistent, they would translate "God" as "god" every place it appears without the article. But it seems that
this grammatical rule only applies when it suits the purpose of backing up the doctrinal beliefs of the Watchtower. The Greek
text of Matthew 5:9, 6:24, Luke 1:35 and 1:75, John 1:6, 1:12, 1:13, and 1:18, Romans 1:7
and 1:17, shows how the Watchtower translates the exact same
grammar for "God" as "God" instead of "god" when it suits their purpose.
ii. In the main
resource the Watchtower uses to establish their claim (The Kingdom Interlinear), the Watchtower quotes two well-known
Greek authorities to make them appear to agree with their translation. But they both have been misquoted, and one of
them, Dr. Mantey has even written the Watchtower, and demanded that his name be removed from the book! Another "scholar" whom
the Watchtower refers to in their book The Word - Who Is He? According to John, is Johannes Greber. Greber was actually
an occult-practicing spiritist, and not a scholar of Biblical Greek.
iii. What do
real Greek scholars say about the Jehovah's Witness translation of John 1:1-2?
"A GROSSLY MISLEADING TRANSLATION. It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'the Word was a god.'
But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have done."
(Dr. Julius R. Mantey)
"Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the
Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicate construction. 'A god' would be totally indefensible."
(Dr. F.F. Bruce)
"I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek
scholar." (Dr. Charles L. Feinberg)
"The Jehovah's Witness people evidence an abysmal ingorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation
of John 1:1." (Dr. Paul L. Kaufman)
"The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 is translated:
' . . . the Word was a god,' a translation which is grammatically impossible. It is abundantly clear that a sect which
can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest." (Dr. William Barclay)[10]
In fact, I was singularly
unable to find a credible scholar who supported the NWT translation. The list of scholars who disagree with the NWT translation
of John 1:1c that David Guzik provides in his commentary is only a small snapshot of the many, many scholars who disagree.[11]
The Greek grammar does not
support the NWT translation of John 1:1c and scholars certainly don’t agree with the NWT translation.
We can also turn to
the Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANFs), who lived and wrote prior to the Nicene Council in 325 A.D., to ascertain how the early Christian
church treated John 1:1. The ANFs quoted and alluded to John 1:1 quite extensively, more than 50 times according to http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/ . (Accessed January 2007.)
Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.)
in his Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter VIII quotes John 1:1 then wrote, “Of course, for that which is begotten
of God is God.”[12] (Emphasis mine.) Clement lived 153 – 217 A.D., though it’s believed “…likely that the whole [of his
written work] was composed ere Clement quitted Alexandria in a.d. 202.”[13] In Exhortation to the Heathen, Chapter 1, Clement quoted John 1:1 and stated:
…This Word,
then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared
as man, He alone being both, both God and man-the Author of all blessings to us…[14] (Emphasis mine.)
And again, in The
Instructor, Book 1, Chapter VIII, Clement wrote: “Nothing, then is hated by God, nor yet by the Word. For both
are one – that is, God. For He has said,…”[15] (Quote of John 1:1 immediately follows; emphasis mine.)
Theophilus lived 115
– 181 A.D. and also quoted John 1:1. In Theophilus to Autolycus, Book II, Chapter XXII, he quoted John 1:1-3
and stated, “The Word, then, being God…”[16]
Tertullian (145 –
220 A.D.) wrote Against Praexes, which quotes and extensively addresses the NWT assertion of the “the Word was
a god” translation of John 1:1c. In Chapter XIII:
… Very
well! you say, I shall challenge you to preach from this day forth (and that, too, on the authority of these same Scriptures)
two Gods and two Lords, consistently with your views. God forbid, (is my reply.)… do indeed definitively declare that
Two Beings are God, the Father and the Son, and, with the addition of the Holy Spirit, even Three, according
to the principle of the divine economy…That there are, however, two Gods or two Lords, is a statement which at
no time proceeds out of our mouth: not as if it were untrue that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost
is God, and each is God…." Besides, if, from that perfect knowledge150 which assures us that the title of God and Lord is suitable both to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost,
we were to invoke a plurality of gods and lords, we should quench our torches, and we should become less courageous
to endure the martyr's sufferings, from which an easy escape would everywhere lie open to us, as soon as we swore by a
plurality of gods and lords, as sundry heretics do, who hold more gods than One.[17] (Emphasis mine.)
And in Chapter XIX:
…Since
they are unwilling to allow that the Son is a distinct Person, second from the Father, lest, being thus second, He
should cause two Gods to be spoken of, we have shown above238 that Two are actually described in Scripture as God and Lord. And to prevent their being offended at this fact, we
give a reason why they are not said to be two Gods and two Lords, but that they are two as Father and Son; and this not by
severance of their substance, but from the dispensation wherein we declare the Son to be undivided and inseparable from
the Father,-distinct in degree, not in state. And although, when named apart, He is called God, He does not thereby
constitute two Gods, but one…[18] (Emphasis mine.)
The aforementioned
ANFs wrote 100 – 220 A.D., approximately a century after the close of the New Testament canon and the death of the final
apostle, John. They give us the best indication of what Jesus taught the apostles and what the apostles passed down to the
early church. And the ANFs very obviously did not consider Jesus “a god” in John 1:1c, but rather wrote of John
1:1 addressing Jesus as THE God, Almighty God.
In summary, Greek grammar
doesn’t support the NWT. Commentators and Greek/New Testament scholars uniformly agree that John 1:1 speaks of Jesus
as Almighty God and the ANFs wrote of John 1:1 within the context of Jesus as Almighty God. As such, the NWT translation of
John 1:1c lacks all credibility and merit.
John 1:1 very much
refers to the Word (Jesus) as Almighty God.
John 1:1a and the eternal en
While the WTBTS focuses
a great deal of attention on John 1:1c, an equally strong declaration of the Word’s deity is made in John 1:1a. In
the beginning was the Word. In the beginning (KJV) or en arche in transliterated Greek, starts the book
of John and refers to Genesis 1:1, In the beginning, God created…(KJV) Genesis 1:1 in the LXX uses the same en
arche that John uses to begin his Gospel. The first chapters of Genesis speak of God’s act of creation and John’s
prologue (1:1-18) addresses creation as well.
Adam Clarke wrote of John
1:1a:
That is, before anything
was formed – ere God began the great work of creation. This is the meaning of the word in Genesis 1:1, to which the
evangelist evidently alludes. This phrase fully proves, in the mouth of an inspired writer, that Jesus Christ was no part
of the creation, as he existed when no part of that existed; and that consequently he is no creature…[19]
Albert Barnes agreed:
This expression is
used also in Genesis 1:1. To that place John evidently has allusion here, and means to apply to ‘the Word’ an
expression which is there applied to God. In both places it clearly means “before creation,” “before
the world was made,” “when as yet there was nothing.” The meaning is, that the Word had an existence
before the world was created…[and] is not, then, a creature or created being, and must be, therefore, uncreated
and eternal. There is but one Being that is uncreated, and Jesus must be therefore divine.[20] (Emphasis mine.)
So in the beginning, before
all of creation, the Word already was, which brings us to our next point of consideration for John 1:1a: the imperfect tense
of the verb used here (and throughout John 1:1), was, or en in transliterated Greek. The imperfect tense refers to
continual action.
A.T. Robertson stated:
Three times in this
sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi, to be, which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply
continuous existence.[21] (Emphasis mine.)
James White, in “John
1:1 Meaning and Translation” further states:
Throughout this section,
John carefully contrasts the Word, and all other things. He does so by consistently using en of the Logos, the Word, and by
consistently employing a totally different verb in reference to all other things. This other verb is “to become”
(engeneto). It is used of John the Baptist in verse 6, of the world in verse 10, and the children of God in verse 12.
Only when we come to verse 14 does John us “to become” of the Word, and that is when the Word “became flesh.”
This refers to a specific point in time, the incarnation, and fully demonstrates John’s intentional usage of contrasting
verbs.[22]
In the beginning –
before all of creation – the Word existed, continually existed. John 1:1a testifies to the eternal nature of Christ
and since only God (not “a god”) is eternal, John 1:1 speaks of Jesus as God.
Mighty vs. Almighty God
As indicated by the WTBTS,
Jesus is prophetically called “mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6:
For unto us a child
is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor,
The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
(KJV)
For a child will
be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful
Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (NASB)
For to us a child
is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty
God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (NIV)
For
there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder.
And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (NWT)
The August 1, 1984 edition of The Watchtower, the article “How Christendom Came to Worship an Unknown
God,” however, stated:
Isaiah prophetically
referred to Jesus the Messiah as “Mighty God.” (Isaiah 9:6) At Isaiah 10:21, the same prophet spoke of Jehovah
as “the Mighty God.” Some try to use this similarity of wording to prove that Jesus is God. But we need to be
careful about reading too much into these verses. The Hebrew expression rendered “Mighty God” is not limited to
Jehovah as is the expression “God Almighty.” (Genesis 17:1) Admittedly, there is a difference between being mighty
and being almighty, with no superior.
What does Genesis 17:1 say?
Genesis 17:1
And when Abram
was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be
thou perfect. (KJV)
Now when Abram
was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be blameless. (NASB)
When Abram was
ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless. (NIV)
When
AŽbram got to be ninety-nine years old, then Jehovah appeared to AŽbram and said to him: “I am God Almighty. Walk before
me and prove yourself faultless. (NWT)
Jehovah is certainly called
God Almighty, but nothing in this verse states that the title el shaddai (Almighty God) is any way greater than el
gibbor (Mighty God). Mighty God is not even mentioned. This verse doesn’t limit either title in any way whatsoever.
A careful study of the Hebrew
terms that translates into Almighty God and Mighty God reveals that the two adjectives (shaddai and gibbor)
applied to God (el) are in no way etymologically related. In English, of course, the words “mighty” and
“almighty” are related in regards to word origin, but the Old Testament was not written in English. It was written
in Hebrew. The words in Hebrew are shaddai for almighty and gibbor for mighty, which are not related in regards
to word origin at all. In more contemporary terms, demanding an etymological link between shaddai and gibbor
would be akin to linking other etymologically unrelated adjectives, like “big” and “large.” Is the
word “big” etymologically related to “large”? No. Neither is shaddai and gibbor. In
English, “mighty” and “almighty” are related as to their word origins and various comparisons as to
intensity may be implied. Such is not the case for shaddai and gibbor.
In summary, shaddai is
not a greater intensity of gibbor on the basis of word origin(s).
El shaddai is not stated to be greater than el gibbor in Scripture, either. At no point
do we find el shaddai described as bigger, better or mightier than el gibbor. Shaddai and gibbor
are simply both adjectives used to describe el (God), one adjective independent of the other and neither differentiated
at any time as to degree or intensity.
The WTBTS booklet Should
You Believe in the Trinity? (hereafter referred to as SYBT) also states:
To call Jehovah God
"Almighty" would have little significance unless there existed others who were also called gods but who occupied a lesser
or inferior position.[23]
The same argument can be
found in:
CHAPTER
XX. Objection based on the Monarchy of God.
You do not know how
to expound the doctrine even of the single rule. For a monarch is not one who is alone in his existence, but who is alone
in his rule. Clearly he rules over those who are his fellow-tribesmen, men like himself, just as the Emperor Hadrian was a
monarch, not because he existed alone, nor because he ruled over oxen and sheep (over which herdsmen or shepherds rule), but
because he ruled over men who shared his race and possessed the same nature. Likewise God would not properly be called a monarch,
unless He ruled over other gods; for this would befit His divine greatness and His heavenly and abundant honor. [Macarius, Apocriticus IV: 20][24]
Such is the Macarius’
quotation of Porphyry’s Against Christians – a polemic written against Christianity around 300 A.D.,
yet this pagan’s argument agrees with the WTS assertion in SYBT. To answer, I continue in Macarius:
CHAPTER XXVI. Answer to objection based on the Monarchy of
God.
…God rules not as having
the same name as other gods and therefore as one of them, but as supreme, and without being one of them…
We may liken Him to the sun,
which gives things light and beauty till they themselves are bright, and yet receives nothing back from them. Just so God
makes the angels shine with a reflected Godhead, though they
have no part in His actual deity... (Emphasis mine)
What makes the similarity
of the argument so odd is that Porphyry, quoted above, was a pagan arguing against Christians. If Christians believed
the same as he, that Almighty God held a position of authority over lesser gods…Why is Porphyry attacking Christians
on this issue?
In any event, God need not
rule over other gods or be called Almighty in order to differentiate himself from other “gods.” Almighty is an
adjective giving honor, praise and glory to Jehovah God. There is no reason to presume or insist that Yahweh is called Almighty
for identification purposes and implying or asserting as such is ridiculous.
Please see also the quotations
from Tertullian and other ANFs in the section above. The Early Church very
obviously didn’t believe in other gods or a lesser, secondary class of gods and in fact, explicitly denied it.
In a nutshell, the Bible
does not differentiate between el shaddai and el gibbor. El gibbor is not in any way stated or
implied to be less than or inferior to el shaddai. The Bible does not use these two titles to differentiate between
categories of “God” or “gods” in any manner whatsoever and the ANFs certainly denied the existence
of other gods.
John Gill wrote of Isaiah
9:6 in his commentary:
Christ is God, truly
and properly so; as appears from his name Jehovah, which is peculiar to the most High…[25]
Albert Barnes elaborated:
Syriac, ‘The
mighty God of ages.’ This is one, and but one out of many, of the instances in which the name God is applied to the
Messiah; compare Joh 1:1; Rom 9:5; 1Jo 5:20; Joh 20:28; 1Ti 3:16; Heb 1:8. The name ‘mighty God’ is unquestionably
attributed to the true God in Isa 10:21.[26] (Emphasis mine.)
A NET Bible footnote, further
discuses the divinity of the Messiah in this verse and the later application of “mighty God” to Jehovah God in
Isaiah 10:21:
גִּבּוֹר (gibbor) is probably
an attributive adjective (“mighty God”)… regard this title as a reference to God, confronting Isaiah’s
readers with the divinity of this promised “child.” The use of this same title that clearly refers to God
in a later passage (Isa 10:21) supports this interpretation…[27] (Emphasis mine.)
Keil and Delitzsch also
directly addressed the matter of gibbor and shaddai as adjectives of el:
El gibbor was a traditional name of God, which occurs as early as Deu 10:17, cf., Jer 32:18; Neh 9:32; Psa 24:8, etc. The name
gibbor is used here as an adjective, like shaddai. The Messiah, then, is here designated “mighty God.”[28] (Emphasis mine.)
Isaiah 9:6 calls the coming
Messiah “mighty God,” a traditional name of God, not in a lesser or inferior sense as the WTBTS insists (please
see Part 4 for more information), but in the sense that the Messiah (Jesus) was called THE God.
“My Lord and my God”
John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
(KJV)
Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
(NASB)
Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" (NIV)
In
answer Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!” (NWT)
Thomas calls Jesus ho
kurios mou kai ho theos mou, literally “the Lord of me and the God of me.”
The WTBTS booklet SYBT addresses
John 20:28:
But what about the
apostle Thomas’ saying, “My Lord and my God!” to Jesus at John 20:28? To
Thomas, Jesus was like “a god,” especially in the miraculous circumstances that prompted his exclamation. Some
scholars suggest that Thomas may simply have made an emotional exclamation of astonishment, spoken to Jesus but directed to
God. In either case, Thomas did not think that Jesus was Almighty God, for he and all the other apostles knew that Jesus never
claimed to be God but taught that Jehovah alone is “the only true God.” – John 17:3.
Again, the context
helps us to understand this. A few days earlier the resurrected Jesus had told Mary Magdalene to tell the disciples: “I
am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.” (John 20:17) Even though Jesus was already resurrected
as a mighty spirit, Jehovah was still his God. And Jesus continued to refer to Him as such even in the last book of the Bible,
after he was glorified. – Revelation 1:5, 6; 3:2, 12.
Just three verses
after Thomas’ exclamation, at John 20:31, the Bible further clarifies the matter
by stating: “These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God,” not that
he was Almighty God. And it meant “Son” in a literal way, as with a natural father and son, not as some mysterious
part of a Trinity Godhead.[29]
The WTBS objections to Thomas
calling Jesus God Almighty in John 20:28, as noted above, are:
1. Thomas was referring to Jesus as “a god.”
2. Thomas was speaking to Jesus, but the statement was directed to Jehovah God.
3. Thomas “exclamation” was an emotional outburst.
4. John 17:3 says there is only one true God.
5. In John 20:17, Jesus says he is ascending to Mary Magdalene’s God and Jesus’
God.
6. John 20:31 “clarifies” by
saying Jesus is the Son of God.
7. In John 20:31, “Son of God” is to be taken as denoting a literal,
natural father/son relationship.
1. Thomas was referring to Jesus as “a god”
According to the SYBT quote
above, Thomas called Jesus “a god,” not Almighty God. Thomas, in John 20:28, did not simply call Jesus ho theos,
THE God, however. More importantly, Thomas called Jesus the God of me, the God of Thomas, a pious Jew.
There are over 100 occurrences
of “my God” in the Bible and when spoken by a Jew, “my God” always refers to Jehovah God. Always.
There is never one instance in the Scriptures of a Believer calling anyone except Jehovah “my God.” To reflect
an equivalent comparison for this demanded lesser sense of “my God” in John 20:28, the WTBTS must provide a reference
that indicates a Believer legitimately called an angel or another creature “my god” in this lesser sense. To my
knowledge, the WTBTS has thus far failed to do so.
Thomas called Jesus the
Lord of me and the God of me. For a devout Jew, only one being was his or her personal Lord and God: Jehovah. The Almighty.
2. Thomas was speaking to Jesus, but the statement was directed to Jehovah God
The WTBTS does not indicate
which “scholars” purportedly believe Thomas’ address was made to Jesus though directed to God, but I have
been singularly unable to find a single support for this position, nor does the Greek reflect any such thing. Look at the
grammar: Thomas answered and said unto him…(KJV) Thomas was very clearly speaking to Jesus.
Adam Clarke stated:
…a man must do violence to every rule of construction who can apply the address here to any but Christ. The
text is plain: Jesus comes in - sees Thomas, and addresses him; desiring him to come to him, and put his finger into the print
of the nails, etc. Thomas, perfectly satisfied of the reality of our Lord’s resurrection, says unto him, - My Lord!
and My God![30]
Thomas was clearing speaking
to – and addressing – Jesus. Period.
3. Thomas’ “exclamation” was an emotional outburst.
A.T. Roberston stated:
Not exclamation, but address, the vocative case though the form of the nominative, a very common thing in the Koiné.[31]
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown
elaborated:
The Socinian invasion of the supreme divinity of Christ here manifestly taught--as if it were a mere call upon God
in a fit of astonishment--is beneath notice, save for the profanity it charges upon this disciple, and the straits to which
it shows themselves reduced.[32]
Adam
Clarke, too, noted:
Bishop Pearce says here: “Observe that Thomas calls Jesus his God, and that
Jesus does not reprove him for it, though probably it was the first time he was called so.” And, I would ask, could
Jesus be jealous of the honor of the true God - could he be a prophet - could he be even an honest man, to permit his disciple
to indulge in a mistake so monstrous and destructive, if it had been one?[33]
Albert Barnes agreed:
The Saviour did not reprove him or check him as using any improper language. If he had not been divine, it is impossible
to reconcile it with his honesty that he did not rebuke the disc
