WHY DIDN'T JESUS DENY THAT HE WAS GOD? (JOHN 20:28-30)

Before dealing with that passage above, there is one other that might be useful in setting the scene:

“And a ruler asked him (Jesus), 'Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?' And Jesus said to him: 'Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.'” (Luke 18:18-19)

This looks confusing on first reading, but upon a little consideration, the explanation becomes quite clear. We see that some hanger-on has become impressed with Jesus' teachings and perhaps by his miracles as well. So he decides to ask him a question, prefacing it with a little bit of flattery. Jesus jumps all over him for using the word “good” so lightly. At this point, Jesus is alluding to any of a number of OT texts calling God the Father “good,” ten of which are listed in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Thus, Jesus is teaching him, and us, that one should not lightly address anyone using descriptions reserved for God alone unless you really know that you are addressing God Himself. And the ruler obviously did not realize that He was indeed God Incarnate.

I could quote a number of commentators who come to the same conclusion, but here are just two, the first paraphrased by Pao and Schnabel:

“The emphasis that true goodness belongs to God implies neither that Jesus asserts his divinity or that he acknowledges his sinfulness; rather, it finds fault with the notion that Jesus is a teacher, even a 'good' teacher, but nothing more.” (Marshall)

“By this He wishes to teach the young man that only if he regards Him as the Son of God, who is one with God, may he call Him 'good'. The young man, however, as Jesus knew, had no inkling of His real nature, and thus, as he regarded Him as merely human and not as the Son of God, he ought not to address Him as 'Good Master'. (Geldenhuys)

Keep in mind that any other understanding of this comment by Jesus is the same as declaring that Jesus was not sinless.

With the above example in mind, we can now turn to another episode in which Jesus is presented with someone, Thomas, calling him not only “good” but “God.” This would seem to be the ideal time and place for Jesus to correct this apostle's faulty theology and deny that he is God. But unexpectedly (to some), Jesus on this occasion does not berate Thomas at all but instead applauds him. I, of course, am talking about John 20:28 in which Thomas sees the risen Christ and proclaims, “My Lord and my God.” It is totally inconceivable that the same Jesus would on one hand seemingly deny that he was even good when called by that adjective and then turn around and let someone else call him “God” without at the least giving that person a gentle rebuke and a lesson in theology. Unless of course, the Luke 18:18-19 passage is not a denial of Jesus divinity while John 20:28 is a confirmation of it.

When confronted with this obvious fact, my anti-trinitarian friend's only reply was: “There is nothing in the original language [in John 20:28] to indicate that deity is implied; therefore, there was no reason for Jesus to correct Thomas.” Since I am well aware that my friend knows even less Greek than I do, I am amazed that he can make that statement and expect that I will accept it as authoritative. Looking at the original Greek, this address to Jesus literally reads, “The Lord (kyrios) of me and the God (theos) of me!” Thus, not only is the standard NT word for God the Father employed, but there is a definite article (“the”) in front of it. So it is not even possible to translate it as “a god” instead. I was curious at this point to see what some commentators who do know the Greek language thoroughly have to say on the matter, and on this point they were unanimous.

George E. Ladd says that “in the use of the absolute ego eimi ['I am], Jesus is in some real sense identifying himself with the God of the Old Testament. In the Johannine narrative, this comes to full expression after the resurrection in the confession of Thomas, 'My Lord and my God' (20:28).”

“This marks the highest level of faith recorded in this Gospel. The high conception of the divine nature of Jesus is unmistakable...” (D. Guthrie)

Blum also marks this verse as “the high point of the Gospel. Here was a skeptical man, confronted by the evidence of Jesus' resurrection. He announced that Jesus, the Man of Galilee, is God manifest in the flesh. Thus, the truths in the first chapter were realized personally in this apostle (1:1,14-18).”

“We may now properly speak of the divinity, or better, the deity of Christ. In three instances the Johannine writings actually call Jesus 'God' (John 1:18; 20:28; I John 5:20.” (R.H. Fuller)

“John's Gospel affirms all the ways in which Jesus was known to early Christians while reserving the most adequate confession to the one that Thomas makes only after the resurrection...John's Gospel does not replace but rather brings to fullest development the christological insights of all the other Gospels.” (Bauckham)

Wilkins states that in John 20:28, “the disciples finally comprehend Jesus' full status as 'Lord and God.'”

“In the Gospels theos refers to the God who created the world the God of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Theos never denotes another deity or idol...In the Gospel of John the preexsistent Word, who was 'with God (theos),' is also called theos (Jn. 1:1), and the risen Jesus is addressed as 'my God' by Thomas (Jn 20:28)...The earliest believers in Jesus were not ditheists, believing in two gods; they are more deeply shaped by scriptural and Jewish convictions than by the pagan polytheism of their contexts. Jesus is presented not as a God alongside the God of Israel, but rather as properly included in the divine identity of the God of Israel.” (M.M. Thompson)

Parsenios points out that in Matthew's Gospel (1:23) the translation of Emmanuel “often is rendered 'God is with us' in concert with John 1:1-5; 20:28.”

Keener calls John 20:28, “the climactic confession of faith in this Gospel...Genuine saving faith must both recognize Jesus' divine identity (Jn 20:28-31) and persevere to the end (Jn 8:30-32).”

“The Fourth Gospel is the only place where Jesus is explicitly identified as the incarnation of the God of Israel (Jn. 1:14; 8:58; 20:28), and he claims equality with God (Jn. 5:18). Jesus' character in John is more aware of his preexistence and divine personhood than in the Synoptics.” (M.F. Bird)

Borchert warns against interpreters who “seek to reduce the high Christology of the present text “by claiming that Thomas was exclaiming a praise to God rather than speaking to Jesus.” He adds, ”The confession of Thomas is not unlike the attribution to 'my God and my Lord' in Ps 34:23...The early Christians thus claimed for Jesus attributes akin to Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament.”

“It is significant that it is an ascription to Jesus of deity, corresponding to 'the Word was God' in 1:1.” (L. Morris)

R.E. Brown states that “there is scholarly agreement that John's source for the titles is biblical, combining the terms used by LXX [the Septuagint] to translate YHWH (=kyrios) and Elohim (=theos)...it is Thomas who makes clear that one may address Jesus in the same language in which Israel addressed Yahweh...Nothing more profound could be said about Jesus.”

So why didn't Jesus deny to Thomas that He was God? It was because He was and is God.