John 20:28 — “My Lord and my God”: conferred majesty, not essential deity

“Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.’ Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ Jesus said to him, ‘Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.’”

John 20:27-29

Context: Thomas’s exclamation in the Easter tradition

John 20:28 stands at the climax of the Easter chapter. Thomas, who was absent when the Risen One first appeared, had declared that he would not believe until he had seen and touched the marks of the nails (20:25). Eight days later Jesus again comes through closed doors, turns precisely to Thomas, and invites him to examine the wounds. The cry “My Lord and my God” is therefore the reaction of a man startled and overwhelmed by a bodily encounter with the one he knew to be dead — not the calm formulation of a doctrinal statement about two natures.

What matters decisively is what the Evangelist himself states immediately afterward as the purpose of the whole book. In 20:31 John writes: “But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life.” The author thus draws from the Thomas scene not the conclusion “Jesus is God the Son,” but “Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.” The confessional aim of the Gospel is messiahship and divine sonship — not consubstantiality with the Father.

The whole chapter is moreover pervaded by a sharp distinction between Jesus and God. Eleven verses before Thomas’s exclamation, the Risen One himself sends Mary Magdalene with the message: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God” (20:17). In the same chapter, from the mouth of the same Jesus, the Father holds the rank of the “God” over Christ. Whoever reads 20:28 in isolation as a proof of deity must either overlook 20:17 or interpret it against itself.

Finally, the occasion of the cry is the resurrection. Thomas confesses the one who has been raised from the dead — according to the consistent testimony of the New Testament, raised by God the Father (Acts 2:24, 32; Rom 10:9; Gal 1:1). Whoever is raised by another is not the immortal, one God, “who alone has immortality” (1 Tim 6:16). The very setting of the scene places the confession within the horizon of dignity conferred by God, not of essential deity.

The Socinian core thesis

Read in a Socinian way, John 20:28 testifies to the divine sovereignty of the exalted Christ, not to his essential deity. “God” is in Scripture no word reserved exclusively for the supreme being; it is also conferred on those who represent God’s authority and place. Moses is “a god to Pharaoh” (Ex 7:1), the judges and authorities are called “gods” (Ps 82:1, 6), and Jesus himself appeals to this usage: “He called them gods to whom the word of God came…” (John 10:34-35). In this sense Thomas calls the risen one, to whom God has given “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matt 28:18), his Lord and his God.

The title is warranted precisely by the resurrection. Thomas sees the one whom God has exalted from death and “made Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). He recognizes not two natures in one person, but the Lord appointed by God, to whom divine authority and honor are now due. His confession deliberately rises beyond a mere “Lord” to “God,” because in the risen one he acknowledges over himself not an ordinary but a divine sovereignty.

Alongside this, the simplest reading, considered by many ancient interpreters, is that the cry is an expression of utmost shock addressed to God, who has worked this miracle — just as a person, beholding an unsurpassable work of God, exclaims “my God!” Even then “God” would refer to the Father, who raised the Son. Both readings — the delegated divine sovereignty of the Son or the cry of praise to the Father — lead away from the two-natures doctrine and remain within the biblical confession of one God.

Above all, however, the deity-reading is ruled out by what Thomas bodily has before him: pierced hands, an opened side, one raised from the dead. To bear the marks of wounds, to have died and been raised, are the properties of a man. To ascribe them to the one, immortal God would be absurd. Christ is the man in whom and through whom God acts — not the one God himself, who never dies and is raised by no one.

Core statement

Key terms

Four linguistic and substantive observations decide the interpretation of John 20:28:

ho theós — “God” as a conferred title

The Hebrew elohim, like the Greek theós, is in Scripture no word that exclusively designates the supreme being. God says to Moses: “I have made you as God to Pharaoh” (Ex 7:1; cf. 4:16). The Psalm calls the judges and the mighty of Israel “gods”: “I said, You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you” (Ps 82:6). Here the title designates participation in God’s authority and representation, not a divine nature.

It is precisely to this usage that Jesus himself appeals when he is charged with blasphemy: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came — and Scripture cannot be broken — do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (John 10:34-36). Christ explicitly derives his dignity from a conferred, not from an essential, deity.

ho kýriós mou kaí ho theós mou — the form of address

The exclamation stands in the nominative with the article (“the Lord of me and the God of me”), used as an address. Trinitarian doctrine likes to stress the article before theós; yet the same John also uses the article where something created or conferred is undeniably meant. The form as such decides nothing; it merely shows a solemn, direct address. Whether this address is directed to the risen Lord or to the God who raised him, and in what sense the word “God” is meant, is settled by the context alone.

It is remarkable that the possessive “my” (mou) avoids any absolute ring. Thomas does not say “the God” outright, but “my God” — in exactly the same wording with which, a few verses earlier, the Risen One calls the Father “my God and your God” (20:17). The language places Thomas and Christ on the same side of the relationship to God: both have a God.

The marks of the wounds — what Thomas really sees

The occasion of the cry is the inspection of the marks of the nails and the pierced side. Thomas confesses one who was crucified, died, and was raised. But mortality, death, and being-raised-by-another are properties of a man, not of the one, immortal God (1 Tim 6:16). What Thomas has before him precisely excludes identity with the supreme God.

Here no appeal to two natures, a mortal and an immortal in the same person, helps. For then Thomas would, with the same word “God,” ascribe to one nature what belongs only to the other — a confession contradictory in itself. Simpler and more biblical is this: Thomas recognizes in the one who had been mortal and is now raised the Lord appointed by God, to whom divine honor is due.

“My God and your God” (John 20:17) — the key within the same chapter

John himself supplies the decisive interpretive key, eleven verses before Thomas’s exclamation. The Risen One says: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God” (20:17). Christ has a God above himself, and it is the same God as that of his disciples. Whoever has a God above himself is not himself the one, supreme God.

The two passages must be read together, because they stand in the same chapter, indeed in the same series of appearances. If one reads 20:28 as a confession of the essential deity of Christ, it falls into open contradiction with 20:17. If one reads “God” in 20:28 as a title of conferred sovereignty, the tension dissolves: Christ has a God (20:17) and is at the same time the divine Lord appointed by this God (20:28).

Comparison of the interpretations

Sozzini in the original: The Racovian Catechism on Thomas’s exclamation

The Racovian Catechism treats John 20:28 expressly among the passages “in which Christ is called God” (alongside John 1:1 and Rom 9:5). Its first step is to observe what Thomas has before him — one crucified and raised from the dead — and in what sense he therefore calls him “God”:

“In the second testimony Thomas (insofar as Thomas’s words are not an expression of astonishment at the matter) calls Christ God — Christ, on whose feet and hands he perceived the marks of the nails and on whose side the marks of the lance; and because he saw him raised from the dead, he therefore called him his Lord and his God, as if he meant to say: the Lord who is rightly to be named also with the title of God.”

Racovian Catechism (1605), On the Person of Christ — The passages of Scripture in which Christ is called God

The Catechism thus keeps two readings open, neither of which leads to the two-natures doctrine: either the cry is an expression of shock at the miracle, or Thomas calls the risen one “God” in the sense of the Lord appointed by God and divinely reigning. It then draws the boundary that the thing seen itself sets: a mortal who was raised cannot be the one God.

“To bear the marks of wounds, however, and to descend from the fathers, are properties of a man, which to ascribe to him who is that one God would be all too absurd. … From this it would follow that that one God were two Gods, of whom the one had been with the other.”

Racovian Catechism (1605), On the Person of Christ — Exposition of John 20:28 and Rom 9:5

Elsewhere the Catechism specifies why Thomas went beyond the mere “Lord” and also said “God”: not to confess a second deity, but to acknowledge the extraordinary, divine kind of sovereignty of the risen one over himself.

“… in which sense Thomas too, when he addressed those words to Christ, did not consider it sufficient to call him his Lord, but also called him his God, so as to acknowledge not an ordinary but a divine sovereignty of the same over himself.”

Racovian Catechism (1605), On the Person of Christ — On Acts 20:28 and the title “God”

With this the Socinian line is drawn: “God” here is a title of majesty of the conferred sovereignty, borne by the one whom God raised and appointed. This takes nothing of reverence from the confession of Thomas — it only preserves the confession of one God that Christ himself utters in the same chapter when he calls the Father “my God.”

Overview of the writings of Sozzini

Logical arguments

From John 20:28 and its context the following arguments against the deity- and two-natures-reading arise:

1. Argument from Jesus’s own testimony in the same chapter. Eleven verses earlier the Risen One calls the Father “my God and your God” (John 20:17). Whoever has a God above himself is not himself the one God. The most obvious interpretation of v. 28 must not contradict v. 17.
2. Argument from the stated purpose of the book. John himself draws the sum in 20:31: “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” The Evangelist therefore interprets the Thomas scene in terms of messiahship and divine sonship, not consubstantiality. His own conclusion takes precedence over a later dogmatic reading.
3. Argument from the conferred title of God. “God” designates in Scripture also Moses (Ex 7:1) and the judges (Ps 82:6); Jesus himself appeals to this usage (John 10:34-35). The title can therefore mean conferred authority. Since the context concerns the resurrection and appointment of Christ, precisely this sense is the obvious one.
4. Argument from the marks of the wounds. Thomas confesses one whose marks of the nails and pierced side he sees. Vulnerability, death, and being raised are properties of a man, not of the one, immortal God (1 Tim 6:16). What is seen excludes identity with the supreme God.
5. Argument from the resurrection by God. The New Testament testifies consistently that God raised Christ (Acts 2:24, 32; Rom 10:9; Gal 1:1). The one raised by another is subordinate to that one. Thomas therefore confesses the one exalted by God, not a second who raised himself.
6. Argument from the absurdity of two Gods. If “my God” in Thomas’s mouth meant essential deity, while Christ at the same time has a God above himself (20:17), there would be two Gods, “of whom the one had been with the other.” This contradicts the fundamental confession “the Lord is one” (Deut 6:4).
7. Argument from the silence about two natures. In the text there is no trace of a distinction that Thomas addresses the “divine nature” and not the human. This information must be brought in from outside. A doctrine that the text does not itself mark cannot be proved from it.
8. Argument from Pauline usage. Paul ordinarily calls Christ “Lord,” the Father “God” (1 Cor 8:6); even “one God and Father of all” (Eph 4:6) and “one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5) keep the terms apart. A single title of God, spoken in an overwhelmed exclamation, cannot reverse this consistent order.

Biblical cross-references

The following passages support, deepen, or illuminate the Socinian interpretation of John 20:28:

Objections and Socinian answers

Objection 1: “Thomas calls Christ ‘my God’ without qualification — that is a confession of deity.”

Moses too is called “god to Pharaoh” (Ex 7:1) and the judges are called “gods” (Ps 82:6) without express qualification — and yet no one thinks they are the supreme God. The absence of a qualification therefore proves nothing; what is decisive is the usage in which “God” can also designate conferred authority. Jesus himself expressly defended this usage (John 10:34-36).

The “qualification” is supplied by the context: what Thomas has before him is one crucified with the marks of wounds, raised by God. This excludes from the outset that he means the one, immortal God, who never dies and is raised by no one. The text sets the boundary, even without a qualifying word.

Finally, an unqualified confession of deity would fall into open contradiction with 20:17, where the same Jesus calls the Father “my God.” Scripture does not paralyze itself: Thomas’s confession is to be read in the light of Jesus’s own testimony, not against it. With this the delegated, majestic meaning of “God” remains the only one free of contradiction.

Objection 2: “The article before theós shows that the one, true God is meant.”

The article here is conditioned by the possessive “my” and by the form of address; in Greek the article regularly stands with an address that has a possessive. From this grammatical necessity no statement about essence can be derived. The form testifies to a solemn address, not to a definition of nature.

Moreover, the rule “articular theós = the supreme God” is not without exception. In John 10:34-35 Jesus approvingly quotes the “you are gods” of men; the usage of Scripture knows the title of God for what is conferred. A single grammatical feature cannot override this broad testimony.

Above all, however, here too the substantive context decides over the grammar: the same Evangelist who sets the article has Christ, eleven verses earlier, call the Father “my God” and sums up his book in the confession “Son of God” (20:31). The grammar is to be interpreted within the framework of these clear statements, not against them. So “my God” remains the majestic title of the Lord appointed by God.

Objection 3: “Jesus does not reject the cry, but praises Thomas’s faith.”

Jesus sanctions the faith of Thomas in the Risen One, not a particular dogmatic determination of his nature. His word aims expressly at seeing and believing (“blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe”), not at a statement about two natures. From the sanctioning of faith no dogma of deity follows.

There was also nothing for Jesus to reject, if “God” is meant in the conferred, majestic sense. Christ himself defended this use of the title (John 10:34-36). To call the risen one, appointed by God, “God” is, by Christ’s own standard, no error but fitting.

That Jesus elsewhere redirects to God honors that are due to God alone shows, moreover, his own understanding: “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18). Whoever speaks thus does not interpret himself as the one God. The Thomas scene is to be read in accord with this, not as an exception.

Objection 4: “If ‘God’ is only a conferred title, the confession is devalued.”

The Socinian reading does not devalue the confession but locates its dignity rightly: Thomas acknowledges a “divine sovereignty” over himself, not an ordinary one. The risen Christ bears “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matt 28:18) and the judgment is given over to him (John 5:22). That is the highest, divine dignity — only conferred, not essentially his own.

The true depth of the confession lies in this, that Thomas recognizes in the crucified and raised one God’s own saving action: in Christ God himself has acted, reconciled, and glorified himself. The honor due to Christ goes to the one who sent and exalted him; it does not diminish God but praises him (Phil 2:11: “to the glory of God the Father”).

Conversely, the deity-reading destroys the unity of God, which the whole biblical faith guards (Deut 6:4; 1 Cor 8:6). A confession that divides the one God into two gains no depth but loses the foundation. The majestic reading preserves both: the highest honor of Christ and the one God whom Christ himself calls “my God.”

Objection 5: “Only God may be worshiped; Thomas worships Christ.”

Scripture knows a reverence toward the one appointed by God that is due to him for God’s sake. “That all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father” (John 5:23) — and indeed because the Father has given the judgment over to him (5:22). The honor of the Son is grounded in the sending and appointment by the Father; it is derived, not original, honor.

This honor is ultimately directed to the Father: “that every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:11). The veneration of Christ is not a second cult alongside God, but the acknowledgment of the one whom God has exalted — and precisely so the glorification of the one God.

Besides, “worship” here need not be understood in the strict sense of the worship due to God alone; the Greek word for homaging reverence is used in Scripture also toward kings and messengers of God. Even if one sees in Thomas’s cry the highest veneration, only the divine dignity of the appointed Lord follows from it, not his essential deity. The one, highest worship remains the Father’s, “the only wise God” (Rom 16:27).

Theological consequences

Related verses

The following passages support, deepen, or contrast with the interpretation presented here:

• John 20:17 — “my God and your God”: the Risen One himself has a God, in the same chapter.
• Mark 10:18 — “no one is good except God alone”: Jesus redirects the highest honor to God.
• John 14:28 — “the Father is greater than I”: the precedence of the Father over the Son.
• John 10:30 — “I and the Father are one”: unity of will and work, not of essence.
• 1 Corinthians 8:6 — one God (the Father) and one Lord (Christ): the order of titles in Paul.
• 1 Timothy 6:16 — God alone has immortality: the raised one is not this God.
• Acts 2:36 — “made Lord and Christ”: the conferred sovereignty.
• John 17:3 — the Father “the only true God,” Jesus the sent one.

Summary

John 20:28 — “My Lord and my God” — is the acknowledgment of the divine sovereignty conferred by God on the risen Christ, not the proof of a second divine person. “God” carries the same sense as with Moses (Ex 7:1) and the judges of Israel (Ps 82:6), to which Jesus himself appeals (John 10:34-35): the title of authority, not of essence. What Thomas has before him — the marks of wounds, one raised by God — excludes identity with the one, immortal God.

The Racovian Catechism (1605) treats the word in a separate answer: Thomas calls the one “on whose feet and hands he perceived the marks of the nails …” and whom he “saw raised from the dead” his Lord and God — “as if he meant to say: the Lord who is rightly to be named also with the title of God,” so as “to acknowledge a divine sovereignty of the same over himself.” But the marks of wounds and the resurrection are “properties of a man, which to ascribe to him who is that one God would be all too absurd.”

Read in a Socinian way, the verse fits into the consistent confession of one God throughout Scripture. Thomas confesses not a second God consubstantial with the Father, but the Lord Jesus, crucified and raised by God, on whom God has conferred divine sovereignty — the same Jesus who, eleven verses earlier, calls the Father “my God,” and whose history the Evangelist writes down “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31).