This is my part #9, "3B, "Jesus claimed and accepted the titles `Lord' and `God' of Himself," which is part of my series, "Jesus is Jehovah!" (by topic), which in turn is based on my morning `quiet
[Above (click to enlarge): "The Incredulity of Saint Thomas" (1601-1602), by Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio: Wikipedia.]
time' Bible reading. The previous post in this series was part #8, "3. Jesus claimed to be Jehovah: 3A. Jesus claimed to be `I AM.'." See the Contents page for more details of this series. I am using the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible, unless otherwise indicated. I have quoted the verses which support each topic, and I have provided quotes under only some of those verses as added support.
© Stephen E. Jones
3. JESUS CLAIMED TO BE JEHOVAH
B. Jesus claimed and/or accepted the titles "Lord" and "God" of Himself
i. Jesus accepted the title "my Lord" (Gk. ho kurios) of Himself (Jn 20:28).
Jn 20:24-29. 24Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe." 26Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." 27Then 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." 28Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" 29Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
"John 20:28 [NWT]`In answer Thomas said to him: `My Lord and my God!' (NWT)' Yes, this verse actually appears in the Jehovah's Witness Bible!":
"John 20:28 `In answer Thomas said to him: `My Lord and my God!' (NWT)' Yes, this verse actually appears in the Jehovah's Witness Bible! ... Thomas, although doubting longer than the other apostles, finally came to accept Christ as Lord and God-not `a god' as Watchtower leaders have mistranslated John 1:1 to read in their Bible, but `God,' as his words show. Jehovah's Witnesses find this verse very difficult to deal with because they do not want to admit the simple fact that it declares Christ's deity. ... the ... JW may try to brush it off by saying, `Thomas was just exclaiming his surprise. If we saw a friend return from the dead, we, too, might say, `Oh! My God!' out of sheer surprise. Thomas didn't mean anything by it.' If a Witness takes this approach, we should ask him, `Do you mean that Thomas was using God's name in vain? That would be blasphemy! Thomas certainly wouldn't do that.' Then point out that in the next verse [Jn 20:29] Jesus commented on what Thomas has said. If Thomas had said `God' in vain, Jesus would surely have rebuked him for it, but, instead, he acknowledged that Thomas had finally `believed.' Believed what? That Jesus Christ is both Lord and God! ... Since the Witnesses refer to Jesus as `a god' in contrast with the Father, whom they call `the God,' you may wish to have the JW look up John 20:28 in his own Kingdom Interlinear (1985) Bible. The word-for-word English under the Greek text shows that Thomas literally called Jesus, `The Lord of me and the God of me!'" (Reed, D.A., 1986, "Jehovah's Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Thirty-first printing, 2006, pp.83-84. Emphasis original).
"Thomas used. He said `ho theos' the phrase that the WBTS say is used exclusively of Jehovah God. Jesus is called not just `a god' but `the God'":
"John 20:28 ... This is the second time that Jesus has appeared to the disciples but the first time that Thomas sees Him. His immediate response is to acknowledge Jesus as my Lord and my God. Again this seems fairly clear until we realise that the Witness has been taught that either Thomas got so excited he blasphemed or he said my Lord looking at Jesus and My God looking up to Jehovah in heaven. Read and explain the verse carefully. First it clearly says Thomas said to Him (Jesus) both statements. Second ask the Witness what their KIT [Kingdom Interlinear Translation] shows for the words Thomas used. He said `ho theos' the phrase that the WBTS say is used exclusively of Jehovah God. Jesus is called not just `a god' but `the God'. Indeed Thomas literally says, `the God of me.' If this were not true He would have had to rebuke Thomas in verse 29. Rather though he commends all those who will believe the same as Thomas believed. In the midst of those who would go out to teach the early church, Jesus accepts the acclamation that He was God." (Harris, D. & Browning, B., 1993, "Awake to the Watchtower," [1988], Reachout Trust: London, Revised, pp.140-141. Emphasis original).
"... Thomas was finally overwhelmed with the evidence that Jesus had risen from the dead, he cried out, `My Lord and my God' (Jn. 20:28). The Jehovah's Witnesses' own translation employs a capital `G.' Their Scriptures unmistakably call Jesus Jehovah God, the God (ho theos)":
"In the second place any Christian can point out to Jehovah's Witnesses that the word for `God' (theos) without the definite article ('the') is often used for Jehovah God. He may show this to a Witness in the New World Translation itself. That version translates theos without the article by `God,' with a capital `G' in John 1:6, 12, 13; 3:2, 21! Third, any Christian can show a Jehovah's Witness the fact that some passages do designate Jesus as `the' God, using the definite article (ho) with `God' (theos). According to Matthew 1:23 the birth of Jesus fulfilled the prophetic announcement that the virgin born son should be called Immanuel, `which means when translated, `With us is God.' ` Note the capital `G' which, according to the New World translators, denotes Jehovah God, the God (ho theos) ! Again, when skeptical Thomas was finally overwhelmed with the evidence that Jesus had risen from the dead, he cried out, `My Lord and my God' (Jn. 20:28). The Jehovah's Witnesses' own translation employs a capital `G.' Their Scriptures unmistakably call Jesus Jehovah God, the God (ho theos). Furthermore, the same version represents Jesus as accepting the worship of Thomas and commending all who share his faith. `Jesus said to him: Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe" (v. 29 NWT)." (Lewis, G.R., 1966, "The Bible, the Christian and Jehovah's Witnesses," Presbyterian & Reformed: Phillipsburg NJ, Reprinted, 1980, pp.14-15. Verse typo corrected).
"If Thomas called the risen Christ Jehovah (definite article), `O Kurios mou kai o Theos mou,' and Christ did not deny it but confirmed it ... then no juggling of the text ... can offset the basic thought, namely, Jesus Christ is Jehovah God!":
"No treatment of the deity of Christ would be complete without mentioning the greatest single testimony recorded in the Scriptures. John 20:28 presents that testimony. ... `Thomas answered and said to him, My Lord and my God.' ... Jehovah's Witnesses have vainly striven to elude this text ... but they have unknowingly corroborated its authority beyond refutation .... In .... Jn 20:28 ... O Theos mou, literally `The God of me,' or `my God,' signifies Jehovahistic identity, and since it is in possession of the definite article, to use Jehovah's Witnesses' own argument, it must therefore mean `the only true God' (Jehovah), not `a god.' On page 776 of the New World Translation (Appendix), the author of the note states, `So too John 1:1, uses O THEOS to distinguish Jehovah God from the Word (Logos) as `a god,' `the only begotten God' as John 1:18 calls him.' Now let us reflect on this. If Thomas called the risen Christ Jehovah (definite article), `O Kurios mou kai o Theos mou,' and Christ did not deny it but confirmed it by saying, `Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; Blessed are they not having seen yet have believed' (v. 29), then no juggling of the text in context can offset the basic thought, namely, Jesus Christ is Jehovah God!" (Martin, W.R. & Klann, N., 1953, "Jehovah of the Watchtower," Bethany House Publishers: Bloomington MN, Reprinted, 1981, pp.64-66. Emphasis original).
See also below under "ii. Jesus accepted the title `God' of Himself" and "ii. b. Jesus would have rebuked Thomas if he was wrong,"
a. Jesus claimed and accepted the title "the Lord" (Gk. ho kurios) of Himself.
Jn 13:13. You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am.
"Lord (Ho Kurios). .... For I am (eimi gar). Jesus distinctly claims here to be both Teacher and Lord in the full sense":
"[Jn 13:13] Ye (humeis). Emphatic. Call me (phoneite me). `Address me.' Phoneo regular for addressing one with his title (1:48). Master (Ho didaskalos). Nominative form (not in apposition with me accusative after phoneite), but really vocative in address with the article (called titular nominative sometimes) like Ho Kurios kai ho theos mou in 20:28. `Teacher.' See 11:28 for Martha's title for Jesus to Mary. Lord (Ho Kurios). Another and separate title. In 1:38 we have Didaskale (vocative form) for the Jewish Rabbei and in 9:36, 38 Kurie for the Jewish Mari. It is significant that Jesus approves (kalos, well) the application of both titles to himself as he accepts from Thomas the terms kurios and theos. For I am (eimi gar). Jesus distinctly claims here to be both Teacher and Lord in the full sense, at the very moment when he has rendered this menial, but symbolic, service to them. Here is a hint for those who talk lightly about `the peril of worshipping Jesus!'" (Robertson, A.T., 1932, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume V: The Fourth Gospel & the Epistle to the Hebrews," Broadman Press: Nashville TN, p.240. Emphasis original).
"When Jesus said to his disciples that they rightly regarded him as their 'Lord' he implied they were beginning to realize that he was much more than a person deserving respect":
"[Jn 13:13] ... Jesus continued, You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord', and rightly so, for that is what I am. ... Jesus is also addressed or spoken of as 'Lord' (kyrios) many times in the Fourth Gospel. Sometimes kyrios is translated correctly as `Sir', a term of respectful address, when used by people who did not realize, or had not yet realized, who he was ... In other places kyrios is translated correctly as 'Lord', when something more than respectful address was intended by those using it, such as the evangelist himself (6:23; 11:2; 20:20; 21:12), Peter (6:68; 13:6, 9, 36, 37; 21:15,16, 17, 21), the man born blind (9:38), Mary and/or Martha (11:3, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39), the disciples as a group (11:2; 20:25), the beloved disciple (13:25; 21:7, 20), Thomas (14:5; 20:28), Philip (14:8), Judas, not Iscariot (14:22) and Mary Magdalene (20:2, 13, 18). When Jesus said to his disciples that they rightly regarded him as their 'Lord' he implied they were beginning to realize that he was much more than a person deserving respect; he deserved their obedience as well." (Kruse, C.G., 2003, "The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, pp.283-284. Emphasis original. Verse typos corrected).
"Also they were right in addressing him as Lord (ho kurios); and the deeper the meaning they poured into this concept, the more right they were. He was, indeed, the owner of all things (see on 13:1, 3); moreover, he was equal in essence and authority with God, the Father":
"[Jn 13:13] `You call me Teacher and Lord, and you say (this) correctly, for (that is what) I am.' Indeed, the disciples were right in addressing Jesus as Teacher (ho didaskalos, probably to be regarded as a translation of the Aramaic Rabbi; as 1:38 seems to indicate), for his teaching `with authority and not as the scribes' was the greatest that was ever heard on earth. Also they were right in addressing him as Lord (ho kurios); and the deeper the meaning they poured into this concept, the more right they were. He was, indeed, the owner of all things (see on 13:1, 3); moreover, he was equal in essence and authority with God, the Father." (Hendriksen, W., 1964, "A Commentary on the Gospel of John: Two Volumes Complete and Unabridged in One," [1954], Banner of Truth: London, Third edition, Vol. 2, pp.234-235. Emphasis original).
Jn 13:14. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet.
Mt 21:1-3 1Now when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, 2saying to them, "Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, 'The Lord needs them,' and he will send them at once."
"[Mt 21:3] The Lord (ho kurios). .... In the LXX it is common in a variety of uses which appear in the N.T. ... of God (Matt. 1:20; 11:25), and often of Jesus as the Messiah (Acts 10:36). ... the Christians boldly claimed the word for Christ as Jesus is here represented as using it with reference to himself. ... the disciples were calling Jesus `Lord' and that he accepted the appellative and used it as here":
"[Mt 21:3] The Lord (ho kurios). It is not clear how the word would be understood here by those who heard the message though it is plain that Jesus applies it to himself. The word is from kuros, power or authority. In the LXX it is common in a variety of uses which appear in the N.T. as master of the slave (Matt. 10:24), of the harvest (9:38), of the vineyard (20:8), of the emperor (Acts 13:27), of God (Matt. 1:20; 11:25), and often of Jesus as the Messiah (Acts 10:36). Note Matt. 8:25. This is the only time in Matthew where the words ho kurios are applied to Jesus except the doubtful passage in 28:6. ... the Christians boldly claimed the word for Christ as Jesus is here represented as using it with reference to himself. It seems as if already the disciples were calling Jesus `Lord' and that he accepted the appellative and used it as here." (Robertson, A.T., 1930, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume I: The Gospel According to Matthew & The Gospel According to Mark," Broadman Press: Nashville TN, pp.167-168. Italics original. Verse typo corrected).
"Note especially that Jesus is here using the title `Lord' to designate himself (see Matt. 11:27; 28:18)":
"[Mt 21:3] ... And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, The Lord needs them, and immediately he will let them go. Note especially that Jesus is here using the title `Lord' to designate himself (see Matt. 11:27; 28:18). It is clear, therefore, that this epithet was not an invention of the early church after Christ's departure. It was not something borrowed from a non- Christian culture. It came from the very mouth of Jesus! Note also `the' Lord, not merely `your' Lord; rather, the Lord of all, with the right to claim all for his own use. Jesus predicts that when his claim, by mouth of the two men, is asserted, the owners will immediately release the animals. These owners must have been friends and followers of the Lord." (Hendriksen, W., 1974, "The Gospel of Matthew: New Testament Commentary," Banner of Truth: Edinburgh UK, Reprinted, 1982, pp.763-764).
"[Mt 21:3] Jesus plainly refers to himself as the Lord [ho kurios], the sovereign orchestrator of these events." (Wilkins, M.J., 2007, "Matthew," in "The ESV Study Bible," Crossway Bibles: Wheaton IL, p.1865).
Mk 11:2-3. 2and said to them, "Go into the village in front of you, and immediately as you enter it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat. Untie it and bring it. 3If anyone says to you, 'Why are you doing this?' say, 'The Lord has need of it and will send it back here immediately.'"
Lk 19:30-32. 30saying, "Go into the village in front of you, where on entering you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever yet sat. Untie it and bring it here. 31If anyone asks you, 'Why are you untying it?' you shall say this: 'The Lord has need of it.'" 32So those who were sent went away and found it just as he had told them.
"`Lord' ... [Mk 11:2-3; Lk 19:30-32] ... the natural way to take `Lord' is Jesus' way of referring to himself. ... the church's ascription of `Lord' to Jesus in a full christological sense finds its roots in Jesus' self-references":
"[Mt 21:3] `Lord' (also Mark-Luke [Mk 11:2-3; Lk 19:30-32]) might mean `owner'; but then the disciples' response would be untrue, unless Jesus owned the animals, which is extremely unlikely. The title might refer to Yahweh-the animals are needed in Yahweh's service. But the natural way to take `Lord' is Jesus' way of referring to himself. This step is not out of keeping with the authority he has already claimed for himself and fits this late period of his ministry, when he revealed himself with increasing clarity. ... even the church's ascription of `Lord' to Jesus in a full christological sense finds its roots in Jesus' self-references." (Carson, D.A., "Matthew," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., 1984, "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 - Matthew, Mark, Luke," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, p.437).
Acts 9:4-5 4And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" 5And he said, "Who are you, Lord?" And he said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
Acts 22:8. And I answered, 'Who are you, Lord?' And he said to me, 'I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.'Acts 26:15. And I said, 'Who are you, Lord?' And the Lord [ho kurios]. said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.
"The voice from the glory could only be the voice of God; hence Lord in Paul's question, Who are you, Lord? (5), is meant as a divine title, not as a mere courtesy `Sir'" ... Saul had to identify the Lord Jehovah of the OT whom he zealously sought to serve, with Jesus of Nazareth":
"[Acts 9:3-6] The encounter (3-6). The lightning-swift light (so the verb), brighter than Syria's noonday sun, could only be the shekinah glory, indicative of the divine presence. From this glory came the amazing question: Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? Who was the person who spoke thus? The voice from the glory could only be the voice of God; hence Lord in Paul's question, Who are you, Lord? (5), is meant as a divine title, not as a mere courtesy `Sir'. I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting was the answer-a revelation which meant that, in one tremendous moment of time, Saul had to identify the Lord Jehovah of the OT whom he zealously sought to serve, with Jesus of Nazareth whom he ferociously persecuted in the person of His saints. The shock to his innermost soul was tremendous and showed itself physically in the loss of sight; but once the identification had been made Saul had no doubts or reserves, and from that time forward could truthfully say: `For to me, to live is Christ' (Phil. 2:21). NIV preserves the true text of this narrative, but the added details of the later narratives should be noted. Paul's companions `felt' the celestial presence but did not see the Lord; they heard Saul's voice, but not that of the Lord (7; 22:9)." (Trenchard, E.H., "Acts," in Bruce, F.F., ed., 1986, "The International Bible Commentary," [1979], Marshall Pickering / Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, Second edition, Reprinted, 1994, p.1284. Emphasis original).
"Saul's answer, `Who are you, Lord?' (v. 5), in all likelihood implies recognition of the divine presence, since the words had come from heaven":
"Saul's conversion occurs on the road to Damascus, one of the world's oldest cities, located in Syria. His experience involves a light from heaven which temporarily leaves him blind. This light may be the glory of Christ, usually veiled during his earthly ministry, and revealed at the transfiguration for a few brief moments (Matt. 17:1-8). Saul hears a voice from the Lord, and a brief dialogue takes place. In Acts 22:9 Luke states that Saul's companions did not hear (NIV understand) the voice, and in 26:14 he says that only Saul heard the voice, but in 9:7 he says that his companions heard the voice (Gk. phone in all of these cases). The New International Version rightly translates the word `sound' (v. 7), and this indicates the legitimate range of meaning which the word can have. In other words, everyone heard a sound, but only Saul understood the words. Saul's answer, `Who are you, Lord?' (v. 5), in all likelihood implies recognition of the divine presence, since the words had come from heaven, but until the voice is identified as the voice of Jesus whom Saul is persecuting, there is no recognition of identity. This, along with Saul's obedience to the command to `go into the city, and ... be told what [he] must do' (v. 6), is evidence of conversion or confessing Jesus as Lord (Rom. 10:9)." (Baker, W.H., "Acts," in Elwell, W.A., ed., 1989, "Evangelical Commentary on the Bible," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Second printing, 1990, p.897. Emphasis original).
b. Jesus claimed and accepted the title "Lord" of Himself.
Mt 7:21. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
"Were we to take seriously the hypothesis of an original New Testament text containing the tetragram, Matthew 7:21-22 would be a clear candidate for `restoring' the divine name YHWH, since the doubled kurie kurie evidently originated from Greek-speaking Jews translating `Lord YHWH' and `YHWH Lord'":
"Early in his ministry, Jesus warned that even those who said to him `Lord, Lord' (kurie, kurie) and claimed to do miracles in his name were condemned if they disobeyed him (Matt. 7:21-22; Luke 6:46; see also Matt. 25:11). This doubled form of address occurs repeatedly in the Septuagint in place of the Hebrew `Lord YHWH' (Deut. 3:24; 9:26; 1 Kings 8:53; Ps. 69:6; Ezek. 20:49; Amos 7:2, 5) or `YHWH Lord' (Pss. 109:21; 140:7; 141:8), but never in reference to anyone but YHWH. ... Were we to take seriously the hypothesis of an original New Testament text containing the tetragram, Matthew 7:21-22 would be a clear candidate for `restoring' the divine name YHWH, since the doubled kurie kurie evidently originated from Greek-speaking Jews translating `Lord YHWH' and `YHWH Lord.'" (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, pp.159, 337 n.13).
"It is doubtful whether all who called Jesus `Lord' thought of him as deity, but on numerous occasions there can be no question that they did ( Matt. 7:21f. ...):
"Christ is called Lord. In the New Testament the Greek term is used in four ways. It is used of God the Father ( Matt. 4:7; 11:25; Luke 2:29; Acts 2:17:24; Rom. 4:8; 2 Cor. 6:17f.; Rev. 4:8), as a title of courtesy (Matt. 13:27; 21:29; 27:63; Luke 13:8; John 12:21), as a name for a master or owner (Matt. 20:8; Luke 12:46; John 15:15; Col. 4:1), and as a title of address to, or as a name for, Christ (Matt. 7:22; 8:2; 14:28; Mark 7:28). It is doubtful whether all who called Jesus `Lord' thought of him as deity, but on numerous occasions there can be no question that they did ( Matt. 7:21f.; Luke 1:43; 2:11; John 20:28; Acts 16:31; 1 Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:11). The title `Lord,' as it is often used of Jesus, is the translation of the Hebrew name Jehovah. Thus, Christ is identified with the Jehovah of the Old Testament (cf.John 12:40f.; Rom. 10:9, 13; and 1 Pet. 3:15 with Isa. 6:1ff.; Joel 2:32; and Isa. 8:13 respectively)." (Thiessen, H.C. & Doerksen, V.D., "Lectures in Systematic Theology," [1949], Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1977, Revised, pp.94-95).Mt 8:25. "And they went and woke him, saying, "Save us, Lord; we are perishing."
Mt 14:30. "But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, "Lord, save me."
"Peter tried to walk on the sea ... but when he lost faith and started to sink, he also cried out, `Lord, save me!' (kurie, soson me, Matt. 14:30). ... the words of a Psalm directed to God: `O LORD, save now' (o kurie, soson de, Ps. 118:25":
"On one occasion, Jesus had fallen asleep while out in a fishing boat on the Sea of Galilee with some of his disciples. When a severe storm threatened to capsize the boat, the men woke Jesus up, saying, `Lord, save us!' (kurie, soson, Matt. 8:25). On another occasion, Peter tried to walk on the sea after seeing Jesus do it, but when he lost faith and started to sink, he also cried out, `Lord, save me!' (kurie, soson me, Matt. 14:30). They may not have intended to do so, but the disciples' cries to the Lord Jesus for help recall the words of a Psalm directed to God: `O LORD, save now' (o kurie, soson de, Ps. 118:25, translating literally)." (Bowman, R.M., Jr. & Komoszewski, J.E., 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ," Kregel: Grand Rapids MI, p.160).
Mt 25:11. "Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, 'Lord, lord, open to us.'.
Lk 6:46. "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?
ii. Jesus accepted the title "God" of Himself.
a. Jesus accepted the title "my God" (Gk. ho theos) of Himself (Jn 20:28).
"But in at least eight passages the clear weight of relevant evidence supports our reading them as straightforward assertions of the deity of Christ: ...`Thomas answered, "My Lord and my God!" ' (Jn. 20:28)":
"DIRECT STATEMENTS OF DEITY The texts which assert the deity of Christ are predictably among the most debated in the entire NT. In several the grammatical evidence calls for hesitation before interpreting them as assertions of Christ's Godhood. But in at least eight passages the clear weight of relevant evidence supports our reading them as straightforward assertions of the deity of Christ: `Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!' (Rom. 9:5) `About the Son he [God] says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever".' (Heb. 1:8) `In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' (Jn. 1:1-2) 'No-one has ever seen God, but God the only Son, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.' (Jn. 1:18) `The glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.' (Tit. 2:13) `Thomas answered, "My Lord and my God!" ' (Jn. 20:28) `The righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.' (2 Pet. 1:1) `The church of God, which he bought with his own blood.' (Acts 20:28) The NT contains numerous other verses which possibly, though not definitely, imply the deity of Christ (e.g., Mt . 1:23; Jn. 17:3; Col. 2:2; 2 Thes. 1:12; 1 Tim. 1:17; Jas. 1:1; 1 Jn. 5:20). The eight texts quoted above are sufficient to establish the biblical position beyond doubt; there is, however, much more material." (Milne, B., 1982, "Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief," Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Fifth printing, 1988, p.128-129. Emphasis original).
"... my God' (on the lips of a faithful believer) can refer only to the Lord God of Israel. The language is as definite as it could be and identifies Jesus Christ as God himself":
"Jesus as `My God' in the Climax of John's Gospel (John 20:28). Although the Gospel of John has 21 chapters, the climax of the Gospel comes at the end of chapter 20, when the apostle Thomas confesses Jesus as his Lord and God (v. 28) ... There is essentially no controversy among biblical scholars that in John 20:28 Thomas is referring to and addressing Jesus when he says, `My Lord and my God!' ... Indeed, it is difficult to find any contemporary exegetical commentary or academic study that argues that Thomas's words in John 20:28 apply in context to the Father rather than to Jesus. The reason is simple: John prefaces what Thomas said with the words, `Thomas answered and said to Him' (v. 28a NASB). ... It is therefore certain that Thomas was directing his words to Jesus, not to the Father. ... Thomas's words echo statements addressed in the Psalms to the Lord (Jehovah), especially the following: `Wake up! Bestir yourself for my defense, for my cause, my God and my Lord [ho theos mou kai ho kurios mou]!' (Ps. 35:23). These words parallel those in John 20:28 exactly except for reversing `God' and `Lord.' More broadly, in biblical language `my God' (on the lips of a faithful believer) can refer only to the Lord God of Israel. The language is as definite as it could be and identifies Jesus Christ as God himself." (Bowman, R.M., Jr. & Komoszewski, J.E., 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ," Kregel: Grand Rapids MI, pp.142-143. Emphasis original).
"Thus Jesus ... willingly receives divine homage (John 20:28-29)":
"Such passages as these (and it should be emphasized that they constitute merely a sampling chosen out of many others of similar import) agree with the representation throughout the Gospels that Jesus both claimed and exercised the prerogatives of the Lord God himself. Thus Jesus forgives sins (Mark 2:10, etc.), raises the dead (Luke 7:12-15, etc.), controls nature (Matt. 8:26), will judge the secret motives of men (Matt. 7:22-28), and willingly receives divine homage (John 20:28-29). The statement, therefore, in John 10:30, `I and the Father are one,' is but the epitome of the constant claim of Jesus. As has often been pointed out, Jesus' statement is either true or false. If it is true, then he is God. If it is false, he either knew it to be false or he did not know it to be false. If while claiming to be God he knew this claim to be false, he was a liar. If while claiming to be God he did not know this claim to be false, he was demented. There is no other alternative." (Metzger, B.M., 1953, "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Reprint of article in Theology Today, April, pp.65-85, p.74).
"Christ is, in fact, called `God' with the definite article [ho theos "the God"] in several other texts (John 20:28; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20)"
"First of all, it must be remembered that what is indefinite in Greek need not-and sometimes must not-be translated with an indefinite article in English. The reason why it would be incorrect to translate theos `a god' shall be made clear as we progress; the fact is that such a rendering is not necessitated by theos being indefinite. Second, the point that is being made here is that for theos to be definite in this context-after just using the definite ton theon to refer specifically to the person of the Father-would be modalistic. This does not mean that theos cannot ever be definite when applied to Christ, nor does it mean that Christ cannot be called theos with the definite article ho. Christ is, in fact, called `God' with the definite article in several other texts (John 20:28; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20). It is true, however, that none of these passages calls Christ simply ho theos without qualification, evidently because this expression was so firmly associated with the person of the Father. Thus he is called `my God,' `our God and Savior,' `our great God and Savior,' and `the true God and eternal life'-all using the definite article, all indisputably identifying Christ as the Almighty God of the Old Testament, but all avoiding identifying him as the person of the Father." (Bowman, R.M., Jr., 1989, "The Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1995, p.41. Emphasis original).
"Thus he [Jesus] is called `my God,' [Jn 20:28] `our God and Savior,' [2Pet 1:1] `our great God and Savior,' [Tit 2:13] and `the true God and eternal life' [1Jn 5:20]-all using the definite article, all indisputably identifying Christ as the Almighty God of the Old Testament":
"First of all, it must be remembered that what is indefinite in Greek need not-and sometimes must not-be translated with an indefinite article in English. The reason why it would be incorrect to translate theos `a god' shall be made clear as we progress; the fact is that such a rendering is not necessitated by theos being indefinite. Second, the point that is being made here is that for theos to be definite in this context-after just using the definite ton theon to refer specifically to the person of the Father-would be modalistic. This does not mean that theos cannot ever be definite when applied to Christ, nor does it mean that Christ cannot be called theos with the definite article ho. Christ is, in fact, called `God' with the definite article in several other texts (John 20:28; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20). It is true, however, that none of these passages calls Christ simply ho theos without qualification, evidently because this expression was so firmly associated with the person of the Father. Thus he is called `my God,' `our God and Savior,' `our great God and Savior,' and `the true God and eternal life'-all using the definite article, all indisputably identifying Christ as the Almighty God of the Old Testament, but all avoiding identifying him as the person of the Father." (Bowman, R.M., Jr., 1989, "The Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1995, p.41. Emphasis original).
b. Jesus would have rebuked Thomas if he was wrong, but instead Jesus blessed Thomas for his insight.
"Thomas ... did not hesitate to address the Risen Christ as Lord and God. And Jesus accepts the words and praises Thomas for so doing":
"[Jn 20:28] My Lord and my God (Ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou). Not exclamation, but address, the vocative case though the form of the nominative, a very common thing in the Koine. Thomas was wholly convinced and did not hesitate to address the Risen Christ as Lord and God. And Jesus accepts the words and praises Thomas for so doing." (Robertson, A.T., 1932, "Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume V: The Fourth Gospel & the Epistle to the Hebrews," Broadman Press: Nashville TN, p.316. Emphasis original).
"Here was a monotheistic Jew saying to Jesus: `My God!' The fact that Jesus did not rebuke Thomas but commended him for his faith proves decisively that Jesus was equal to the Father, that He was Himself very God!":
"All these instances in which Jesus was worshiped come to a climax in the adoration of Thomas recorded in John 20:28. When Thomas saw Jesus the week after he had expressed disbelief in Jesus' resurrection, he said to Him, `My Lord and my God!' (NWT). If Jesus were not God, he should have rebuked Thomas at this point. Instead of rebuking him, however, Jesus praised Thomas, saying, `Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe' (v. 29, NWT). Surely here is indisputable proof that Jesus recognized Himself to be God and not only permitted but encouraged believers to worship Him as such! ... (1) What can the expression `my God' possibly mean other than `my true God'? ... the New Testament recognizes no true God beside Jehovah God; any god other than Jehovah is for New Testament writers a false god or an idol. Thomas, being a Jew, was a strict monotheist; for him there was no God beside Jehovah. When he said, `my God,' he could have meant nothing other than `my one and only true God.' (2) .... Here was a monotheistic Jew saying to Jesus: `My God!' The fact that Jesus did not rebuke Thomas but commended him for his faith proves decisively that Jesus was equal to the Father, that He was Himself very God!" (Hoekema, A.A., 1972, "Jehovah's Witnesses," [1963], Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, Reprinted, 1990, pp.139-140. Emphasis original).
"`Thomas answered and said to Him, `My Lord and My God'. And our Lord did not restrain him nor rebuke him, He received this as His rightful designation":
"Among the disciples was one who refused to believe in the resurrection of Christ without tangible proof. For him the witness of others was not sufficient in a matter of such momentous consequence. He demanded nothing less than positive proof within the domain of his own senses. When Our Lord appeared to Him, He did not rebuke him for his scepticism, rather He readily provided the kind of proof asked for. His confession, in words expressing the ultimate in Christian faith, could not have been a consequence of seeing someone risen from the dead, for he must surely have seen the risen Lazarus. There is no mistaking their intent: `Thomas answered and said to Him, `My Lord and My God'. And our Lord did not restrain him nor rebuke him, He received this as His rightful designation (John 20:24-29)." (Bruce, F.F. & Martin, W.J., 1964, "The Deity of Christ," North of England Evangelical Trust: Manchester UK, pp.20-21. Emphasis original).
"... contrary to the claim of the Watchtower Society-theos ('God') with the definite article ho ('the') is indeed used of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. One example of this is John 20:28, where Thomas says to Jesus, `My Lord and my God!' The verse reads literally from the Greek, `The Lord of me and the God [ho theos] of me'":
"Christ Is Definitely God As if all that weren't enough to prove the deity of Christ in John 1:1, it is also critical to note that-contrary to the claim of the Watchtower Society-theos ('God') with the definite article ho ('the') is indeed used of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. One example of this is John 20:28, where Thomas says to Jesus, `My Lord and my God!' The verse reads literally from the Greek, `The Lord of me and the God [ho theos] of me.' Clearly, Christ is just as much God as the Father is. Other examples of ho theos ('the God') being used of Christ include Matthew 1:23 and Hebrews 1:8. We see again, then, that the same words used of the Father's deity are used in reference to Jesus' deity. Ask... o If theos ('God') with the definite article ho ('the') is used in the New Testament of Jesus Christ just as it is used of Jehovah-God, then doesn't this mean Jesus is just as much God as the Father is?" (Rhodes, R., 1993, " Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses," Harvest House: Eugene OR, Reprinted, 2006, pp.109-110. Emphasis original).
"It would be ... blasphemy for Jesus not to rebuke Thomas if he were wrong. ... but in fact he accepts Thomas's profession of faith that he is God in the next verse":
"My Lord and My God! (John 20:28) In John 20:28 Thomas says to Jesus, `My Lord and my God,' which in the Greek is `Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou' Translated literally, the sentence reads, `The Lord of me and the God of me.' It would be nothing short of blasphemy for Jesus not to rebuke Thomas if he were wrong. Jesus does nothing of the sort, but in fact he accepts Thomas's profession of faith that he is God in the next verse: `Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe.' [Jn 20:29 ] This is especially significant because the Watchtower teaches that the Greek phrase ho Theos ('the God') is used in Scripture to refer to the true God, as opposed to lesser gods. Yet here ho Theos is applied directly to Jesus, showing on the Watchtower's own logic that Jesus is the God, and not just a god. This creates a major theological problem for the Watchtower. To try to explain this verse, the claim is made that Thomas's statement was merely an exclamatory expression of praise directed to the Father. Yet the Watchtower's own NWT refutes this notion, as this verse clearly states that Thomas directed his words to Jesus: `In answer, Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"' (emphasis added)." (Evert, J., "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses," Catholic Answers: El Cajon CA, 2001, p.78. Emphasis original).
"... when Thomas worshiped Jesus as `My Lord and my God' he was in effect committing blasphemy for which Christ would have immediately rebuked him, unless what Thomas was saying was true, namely, that Jesus was his Lord and his God, Jehovah, the Son":
"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God (John 20:28). Most all students of Scripture are familiar with so-called `doubting Thomas' who refused to believe that Jesus Christ had risen from the grave until he had thrust his finger into the wounds of Christ's hands and his hand into Christ's open side, a statement he later deeply regretted. John records for us in the 20th chapter how the Lord Jesus appeared after His resurrection in a physical form and then singling out Thomas offered His resurrection body as proof that He had truly vanquished the grave as a man and had risen in a bodily form. Thomas, it will be noted, wasted no time in doing what any human being would do when confronted with such divine evidence, he uttered the immortal phrase, `My Lord and my God,' worshiping at the feet of his risen Saviour, and giving to Jesus Christ adoration and homage as `God manifest in the flesh.' Now if Jehovah's Witnesses honestly want to be realistic, they will have to recognize two facts: First, Jesus appeared in physical form bearing the marks which He received upon the Cross-inescapable evidence that His was a bodily resurrection, not a spirit resurrection as they attempt to teach. Second, the Witnesses will also have to admit that under Mosaic law no one is entitled to warship but Jehovah Himself (Exodus 20); therefore, when Thomas worshiped Jesus as `My Lord and my God' he was in effect committing blasphemy for which Christ would have immediately rebuked him, unless what Thomas was saying was true, namely, that Jesus was his Lord and his God, Jehovah, the Son. Since Jesus did not rebuke him, but instead continued on to teach His disciples more of His Identity and plans, the argument of the Watch Tower crumbles before this revelation of Scriptural truth. With Thomas then all true Christians can echo of the Lord Jesus Christ, `My Lord and my God.'" (Martin, W.R., "Jehovah's Witnesses," Bethany House: Minneapolis MN, 1957, Reprinted, 1969, pp.37-38. Emphasis original).
See also the future "5. JEHOVAH'S NAMES AND TITLES ARE APPLIED TO JESUS": "A. Jesus is `Lord'" and "B. Jesus is `God'".
My next post in this series will be part #10, "3C. Jesus claimed and accepted the title of The Son of God of Himself."
Stephen E. Jones, B.Sc., Grad. Dip. Ed.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & The Shroud of Turin
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment