What Thomas said

[onpatmos]

Today, July 3rd, is the feast day of St. Thomas the Apostle, and I wanted to put up something in appreciation of the words he said at John 20:28. The passage is here (what is, for the Church, today's Gospel reading):

"Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples said to him, 'We have seen the Lord.' But he said to them, 'Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.' Now a week later his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their midst and said, 'Peace be with you.' Then he said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring you hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.' Thomas answered and said to him, 'My Lord and my God!' Jesus said to him, 'Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.'" John 20: 24 - 29 , (NAB)

During the years that I was an active Witness. I knew that this passage presented a difficulty for Witness doctrine, and I knew that the Witness leadership had given explanations for it. But still, I was uncomfortable and unsettled about it all because, for one thing, what it was saying seemed so direct and clear. John 20:28 was, for me than, one of a number of other passages in scripture that present a problem for Witness doctrine if taken at face value, such as John 1:1, but "can be explained", as I thought.

Seeing for the first time the footnote on John 20:28 in the New American Bible was an eye-opener for me. It says:

"My Lord and my God: this forms a literary inclusion with the first verse of the gospel: 'and the Word was God.'"

Read it here: www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john20.htm

The effect on me of seeing this was similar to the saying from the American south about the use of a two-by-four to get a mule's attention. The idea that John 1:1 and John 20:28 pertain to each other, have to do with each other, is something that never really occurred to me before and, for myself, presented a real problem for attempts to lessen what would be understood from the plain reading of each individual verse. I understand that saying what “caused” certain passages to be placed where they are in the Bible is speculative, but it seems to me that if the idea that these passages correspond to each other is correct, than each one reinforces, in a very strong way, the plain reading of the other. It has changed the way I understand what the Gospel of John is saying, and by extension, how I understand the Bible and the entire Christian message. I do not have all the answers, but things have changed.

At another place on this forum I've listed some other quotes I've found, since my first noticing the footnote on John 20:28 in the New American Bible, that seem to support what that footnote is saying. Here, I'd like to list a couple more that I’ve recently found in “The Trinity in the New Testament" by Arthur W. Wainwright:

"The confession of Thomas has an important place in the structure of the Fourth Gospel. The Prologue of the gospel is an account of the Incarnation of the Word of God. 'The Word', says the evangelist, 'was God" (John 1:1). Later, in John 1:18, Jesus is called "the only-begotten God'. The Fourth Gospel begins, therefore, with a declaration of the divinity of Christ. Until the twentieth chapter there is no other open declaration of his divinity. Many other things are said which imply that he is divine, but he is not called God. Then in the twentieth chapter he is openly called God by Thomas. The gospel seems to lead up to this final confession of the divinity of Christ. Since chapter 21 is probably an appendix to the original gospel, the story of Thomas may have concluded the earlier version of the gospel. The evangelist began and ended his work with a confession that Christ was God. (p. 63)

"The Fourth Gospel has been shown to have approached more nearly to the trinitarian position than any other writing of the New Testament. It emphasizes deliberately and clearly that Jesus is God. There is nothing accidental or unpremeditated about John's account of the words of Thomas, 'My Lord and my God' (John 20:28). He deliberately says, 'The Word was God' (John 1.1) and the best reading of John 1.18 contains the words 'only begotten God'. The writer deliberately places acknowledgements of the divinity of Christ at the beginning and end of the gospel - for chapter twenty probably concluded the first edition of the the gospel." (p.263)

Thomas is said to have eventually preached in India and died as a martyr. Note John 11:16 "So Thomas called Didymus, said to his fellow disciples, "Let us also go to die with him." (NAB) Read more here: www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=410

[johnnyc]

Consider 2 Corinthians 4:4. There satan is named a god, while also stating that Jesus is the "image of God".

I do agree that what Thomas said could be used to support the fact Jesus was God, but then again, you have to throw out all the other scriptures which point to the fact Jesus subordinates himself to the Father. Keep in mind that the Trinity is not explained as if the Father is greater than the Son yet the same, but that they are co-equals with the Holy Spirit. I think people forget that important point - that to argue the trueness of the Trinity, you must not only say that Jesus and Father are one, but that they are equals. The point of equality is very problematic with scripture.

[onpatmos]

but then again, you have to throw out all the other scriptures which point to the fact Jesus subordinates himself to the Father. Keep in mind that the Trinity is not explained as if the Father is greater than the Son yet the same, but that they are co-equals with the Holy Spirit

.

johynnyc

Thank you for your response. The WT and other anti-trinitarian groups present the "subordination" texts in scripture as an insurmountable problem in accepting the Trinity. I've struggled with this myself. Scripture contains some references to Jesus as God, not only in calling him God but, e.g., in quoting OT references to YHWH and applying them to him, and other references that appear to say he is subordinate. What the WT and others say, as I understand it, is that the "subordinationist" texts are so strong as to force texts such as John 20:28 to not really mean what they appear to be saying. When anti-tinitarians do that, it is interpretation.

In reading from the early Church I've discovered other ways of explaining it. The early Church was very much aware that all of this was contained in scripture. So please understand it if in my response I quote what was said early on.

I've looked at the early creeds - the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed for any acknowledgement that Jesus is somehow "inferior to" or "subordinate to" the Father, and I found a reference in the Athanasian Creed. After first giving a very high view of Christ's Deity, it says:

"It is also necessary for eternal salvation that one believe steadfastly in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The true faith is: we believe and profess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and man.
As God, he was begotten of the substance of the Father before time;
as man, he was born in time of the substance of his Mother.
He is perfect God; and his is perfect man, with a rational soul and human flesh.
He is equal to the Father in his divinity, but he is inferior to the Father in his humanity." (emphasis added)

As I understand it then, this can account for many of the statements in Scripture that appear to be saying that Christ is inferior to the Father. Notice what St. Augustine says in his work, "The Trinity", here:

But because, on account of the incarnation of the Word of God for the working out of our salvation, that the man Christ Jesus might be the Mediator between God and men, many things are so said in the sacred books as to signify, or even most expressly declare, the Father to be greater than the Son; men have erred through a want of careful examination or consideration of the whole tenor of the Scriptures, and have endeavored to transfer those things which are said of Jesus Christ according to the flesh, to that substance of His which was eternal before the incarnation, and is eternal. They say, for instance, that the Son is less than the Father, because it is written that the Lord Himself said, "My Father is greater than I." But the truth shows that after the same sense the Son is less also than Himself; for how was He not made less also than Himself, who "emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant?" For He did not so take the form of a servant as that He should lose the form of God, in which He was equal to the Father. If, then, the form of a servant was so taken that the form of God was not lost, since both in the form of a servant and in the form of God He Himself is the same only-begotten Son of God the Father, in the form of God equal to the Father, in the form of a servant the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; is there any one who cannot perceive that He Himself in the form of God is also greater than Himself, but yet likewise in the form of a servant less than Himself? And not, therefore, without cause the Scripture says both the one and the other, both that the Son is equal to the Father, and that the Father is greater than the Son. For there is no confusion when the former is understood as on account of the form of God, and the latter as on account of the form of a servant. (The Trinity, Book 1, Chapter 7 [online version])

Read it here:
www.newadvent.org/fathers/130101.htm

Augustine has much more to say on the subject, even naming other principles of interpretation besides the one given above. The book is available in an edition with a new translation and notes, here:
www.amazon.com/Trinity-Saint-Augustine/dp/0911782966/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246651896&sr=8-1
(The chapter numbering of the hard-copy book is somewhat different from the online version.)

What I've come to personally on this is: When the WT says that Jesus is "a god", i.e., if full deity is not going to be ascribed to him, this is saying, in the end, that he is some sort of in-between god, or demiurge. (gkchesterton, another poster here, talked about and quoted from Athanasius on this.) I have asked myself - is the idea of an in-between god scriptural? Is there any evidence, e.g., in the OT that there is a semi-god working along with YHWH? I don't see scriptural support for that:

Isaiah 44:6 "Thus says the LORD, the Kind of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and the last; besides me there is no god' (cf. Rev 1:17) (RSV)

Isaiah 45:12 “I made the earth and created man upon it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host.”” (RSV)

Isaiah 45:18 “For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not created it a chaos, he formed it to be inhabited!): ‘I am the LORD, and there is no other.’” (RSV)

Isaiah 45:21 "...Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and Savior; there is none besides me." (RSV)

So, the explanations that I've seen given by Augustine and others in the early Church seem more favorable to me, and more in line with the above OT passages, than, e.g., the WT explanation.

I’m going to be away from the computer for a few days. Best wishes and welcome to the forum.

[gkchesterton]

As I'm following the Greek calendar I missed this. Seeing that the first and the last verse meant something together was an eye opener. It makes the whole book rather poetic.

[gkchesterton]

Jul 3, 2009 13:08:46 GMT -5 johnnyc said:

Consider 2 Corinthians 4:4. There satan is named a god, while also stating that Jesus is the "image of God".

I do agree that what Thomas said could be used to support the fact Jesus was God, but then again, you have to throw out all the other scriptures which point to the fact Jesus subordinates himself to the Father. Keep in mind that the Trinity is not explained as if the Father is greater than the Son yet the same, but that they are co-equals with the Holy Spirit. I think people forget that important point - that to argue the trueness of the Trinity, you must not only say that Jesus and Father are one, but that they are equals. The point of equality is very problematic with scripture.

A couple of notes here. First, I don't think it is fair to compare Satan, as Christians are commanded to have one god.

Second, you don't have to cast out all the versus that show subordination. You might consider learning about, "the Monarchy of the Father." Remember that the Trinity does not impose equality of relation but equality of nature. In fact, the Trinity assumes that the definition of the Divine Persons is most seen in their relation.