Notes on God in the Gospel of John

[Thomas]

Again, from those search engines:

"The term Mar-Yah (מַר יָה), meaning 'My Lord [is] Yah,' does not appear in Targum Onkelos as a divine name or title. Instead, Targum Onkelos consistently avoids direct anthropomorphic or personal references to God and uses circumlocutions to preserve divine transcendence.

In place of the Tetragrammaton, Targum Onkelos typically employs the term Yah (יָה) in poetic or prophetic contexts, but not combined with Mar. More commonly, it uses 'the Lord' (מָרָיָא, Maraye) or 'the Name' (שְׁמֵיהּ, Shemeih) to refer to God. In many cases, especially in narrative sections, it uses the Aramaic word memra (מֵימְרָא), meaning 'the Word,' as a substitute for divine action (eg., "the memra of the Lord" instead of "the Lord said")."

So here we can see how 'the Lord' (מָרָיָא, Maraye) in the Targumim (Hebrew Bible in Aramaic) was carried over into Mar in the Peshitta (New Testament in Syriac Aramaic) where it was used in reference to Jesus.

 

[Thomas]

Hermeneutic Stack Exchange: Quoted in its entirety:

"The Greek phrase εἶπεν αὐτῷ (“he said to him”) indicates that Thomas is addressing Jesus directly. The nominative forms ὁ κύριός μου (“my Lord”) and ὁ θεός μου (“my God”) function as vocative forms in Koine Greek. Thomas’s words are not directed to the Father but directly to Jesus. The phrase εἶπεν αὐτῷ (“he said to him”, not not "to them", not one statement for Christ, and the other for the Father) confirms that Thomas is speaking only to one person, to Christ, not the Father. The possessive pronoun μου (“my”) emphasizes Thomas’s personal recognition of Jesus as both Lord and God.

In first-century Jewish culture, invoking God's name flippantly, as in “Oh my God!” would constitute blasphemy (Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 24:16). Thomas, a devout Jew, would not utter such an exclamation. Jesus does not rebuke Thomas for blasphemy or a mistaken declaration. Instead, He commends Thomas’s belief: "Because you have seen me, you have believed" (John 20:29). This affirmation confirms that Thomas’s words were a true confession of faith. The phrase “my God” is used over 100 times in the Bible, and in every instance, it refers to YHWH, the one true God of Israel (e.g. Psalm 35:23, Revelation 4:11). For a pious Jew like Thomas to call Jesus "my God" signifies his recognition of Jesus as fully divine. In John 20:28, Thomas applies this language directly to Jesus, aligning with the Gospel's high Christology.

In Psalm 35:23, the Hebrew phrase אֱלֹהַ֖י וַאדֹנָ֣י (’ĕlōhay wa-’ăḏōnay, "My God and my Lord") demonstrates a close parallel to the Peshitta's rendering of John 20:28. The Psalmist's invocation of God combines two divine titles, indicating both a personal relationship ("my God") and reverence for God’s sovereign authority ("my Lord"). The Targum to this verse also uses אֱלֹהַי וּמָרֵי (Ĕlohāy ū-Mārēy), confirming the use of these terms in a similar liturgical or devotional context. The Peshitta’s Aramaic translation of John 20:28 reads: ܡܳܪܝ ܘܰܐܠܳܗܝ (Mari w-Alahi), which directly translates to "My Lord and my God." Psalm 35:23, in both its Hebrew form (’ĕlōhay wa-’ăḏōnay) and its Targumic translation (Ĕlohāy ū-Mārēy), serves as a linguistic and theological precedent. The structure and terminology in John 20:28 align with the Psalm’s pairing of divine titles. This suggests that Thomas’ exclamation was not an innovation but was deeply rooted in the Jewish linguistic and theological tradition of addressing God. (This bold emphasis mine)

In first-century Palestine, the conversation between Thomas and Jesus likely occurred in Aramaic. Based on the Peshitta’s rendering and the linguistic evidence from the Hebrew Bible and its Targum, Thomas may have said something like: "מָרֵי וֵאלָהָי" (Marei w-Elohai). This reflects the natural way an Aramaic-speaking Jew would declare devotion and recognize divine authority. The declaration in John 20:28 is extraordinary because it is addressed directly to Jesus. In Jewish monotheism, such titles were reserved exclusively for Yahweh. By invoking both "My Lord" and "My God," Thomas expresses not just respect but worship, equating Jesus with the God (Yahweh).

A religious Jew might use the phrase "מָרֵי וֵאלָהָי" (Marei w-Elohai) in prayer, meditation, or Torah study when addressing God directly, expressing profound gratitude, submission, or awe. It could also be uttered in moments of introspection or during a heartfelt plea for guidance or forgiveness. This phrase is directed SOLELY to God, as it would not be appropriate to use it for addressing a human being in the Jewish faith due to its sanctified nature. In an ancient Jewish context, it would have at least extremely unlikely for the phrase "Marei w-Elohai" to be used casually or directed toward another person in moments of surprise or emotional outburst, as phrases involving the name of God (Elohai) were treated with great reverence. Jewish tradition, both ancient and modern, generally avoids casual or irreverent use of God's name or titles (cf. Exodus 20:7). This phrase, specifically meaning "My Lord and my God," would have been reserved for solemn, prayerful, or deeply devotional contexts, always directed exclusively toward the Almighty God. Using it in a way similar to expressions like "Oh my God!" in modern everyday English to address a human being in surprise or emotion would likely have been considered inappropriate or even blasphemous within Jewish religious norms. Cultural norms of the ancient world also emphasized the sacred nature of God's name, making it unlikely for such phrases to be used informally or without careful intention.

The text explicitly states that Thomas "said to him" (εἶπεν αὐτῷ), meaning the whole statement is directed at Jesus, not at the Father. There is no grammatical or contextual basis for redirecting Thomas's words to the Father. The context of John 20:24-29 focuses entirely on Jesus’s resurrection and Thomas's doubt. When Jesus invites Thomas to touch His wounds, Thomas responds with a direct confession of Jesus's identity: "My Lord and my God." This moment reflects Thomas's recognition of Jesus as both his risen Lord and his divine God. Thomas’s confession serves as the climactic conclusion of John’s Gospel, paralleling the prologue: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Thomas’s declaration reaffirms the divine identity of Jesus as introduced in John 1:1. The direct object pronoun ("to him") in both Greek (αὐτῷ) and Aramaic (ܠܶܗ) unambiguously points to Jesus as the recipient of the declaration. The immediate context—Thomas addressing Jesus after seeing his wounds—reinforces that this exclamation is directed at Jesus, not the Father.

 

[Ahanu]

Hermeneutic Stack Exchange: Quoted in its entirety:

"The Greek phrase εἶπεν αὐτῷ (“he said to him”) indicates that Thomas is addressing Jesus directly. The nominative forms ὁ κύριός μου (“my Lord”) and ὁ θεός μου (“my God”) function as vocative forms in Koine Greek. Thomas’s words are not directed to the Father but directly to Jesus. The phrase εἶπεν αὐτῷ (“he said to him”, not not "to them", not one statement for Christ, and the other for the Father) confirms that Thomas is speaking only to one person, to Christ, not the Father. The possessive pronoun μου (“my”) emphasizes Thomas’s personal recognition of Jesus as both Lord and God.
In first-century Jewish culture, invoking God's name flippantly, as in “Oh my God!” would constitute blasphemy (Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 24:16). Thomas, a devout Jew, would not utter such an exclamation. Jesus does not rebuke Thomas for blasphemy or a mistaken declaration. Instead, He commends Thomas’s belief: "Because you have seen me, you have believed" (John 20:29). This affirmation confirms that Thomas’s words were a true confession of faith. The phrase “my God” is used over 100 times in the Bible, and in every instance, it refers to YHWH, the one true God of Israel (e.g. Psalm 35:23, Revelation 4:11). For a pious Jew like Thomas to call Jesus "my God" signifies his recognition of Jesus as fully divine. In John 20:28, Thomas applies this language directly to Jesus, aligning with the Gospel's high Christology.
In Psalm 35:23, the Hebrew phrase אֱלֹהַ֖י וַאדֹנָ֣י (’ĕlōhay wa-’ăḏōnay, "My God and my Lord") demonstrates a close parallel to the Peshitta's rendering of John 20:28. The Psalmist's invocation of God combines two divine titles, indicating both a personal relationship ("my God") and reverence for God’s sovereign authority ("my Lord"). The Targum to this verse also uses אֱלֹהַי וּמָרֵי (Ĕlohāy ū-Mārēy), confirming the use of these terms in a similar liturgical or devotional context. The Peshitta’s Aramaic translation of John 20:28 reads: ܡܳܪܝ ܘܰܐܠܳܗܝ (Mari w-Alahi), which directly translates to "My Lord and my God." Psalm 35:23, in both its Hebrew form (’ĕlōhay wa-’ăḏōnay) and its Targumic translation (Ĕlohāy ū-Mārēy), serves as a linguistic and theological precedent. The structure and terminology in John 20:28 align with the Psalm’s pairing of divine titles. This suggests that Thomas’ exclamation was not an innovation but was deeply rooted in the Jewish linguistic and theological tradition of addressing God. (This bold emphasis mine)

In first-century Palestine, the conversation between Thomas and Jesus likely occurred in Aramaic. Based on the Peshitta’s rendering and the linguistic evidence from the Hebrew Bible and its Targum, Thomas may have said something like: "מָרֵי וֵאלָהָי" (Marei w-Elohai). This reflects the natural way an Aramaic-speaking Jew would declare devotion and recognize divine authority. The declaration in John 20:28 is extraordinary because it is addressed directly to Jesus. In Jewish monotheism, such titles were reserved exclusively for Yahweh. By invoking both "My Lord" and "My God," Thomas expresses not just respect but worship, equating Jesus with the God (Yahweh).

Psalm 35.23 uses the phrase “my God and my Lord” to address Yahweh. Thomas uses the phrase “my Lord and my God” to address Jesus. Therefore, Thomas is declaring that Jesus is ontologically identical to Yahweh.

No.

Only a few verses earlier in John 20.17, Jesus tells Mary Magdalene: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” Who is the God that Jesus is ascending to if he is identical to the God of Psalm 35.23? Make it make sense.

Again, let’s review the shaliach principle: “a man's agent is as himself” (John 12.44-45, 14.9; Exodus 3). It is quite simple. It is the best way to understand the text. Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus repeatedly tells his disciples that to look at him is to look at the Father, because he perfectly represents the Father.

Regarding the Peshitta, it is historically and textually invalid to take a Greek text (John), look at how it was translated into Syriac centuries later, and then use that later translation to guess what Thomas might have said in first century Jewish Aramaic. In doing so the writer is ignoring linguistic shift, dialectical differences, and the evolution of theological vocabulary, as if the world is static or something.

A religious Jew might use the phrase "מָרֵי וֵאלָהָי" (Marei w-Elohai) in prayer, meditation, or Torah study when addressing God directly, expressing profound gratitude, submission, or awe. It could also be uttered in moments of introspection or during a heartfelt plea for guidance or forgiveness. This phrase is directed SOLELY to God, as it would not be appropriate to use it for addressing a human being in the Jewish faith due to its sanctified nature. In an ancient Jewish context, it would have at least extremely unlikely for the phrase "Marei w-Elohai" to be used casually or directed toward another person in moments of surprise or emotional outburst, as phrases involving the name of God (Elohai) were treated with great reverence. Jewish tradition, both ancient and modern, generally avoids casual or irreverent use of God's name or titles (cf. Exodus 20:7). This phrase, specifically meaning "My Lord and my God," would have been reserved for solemn, prayerful, or deeply devotional contexts, always directed exclusively toward the Almighty God. Using it in a way similar to expressions like "Oh my God!" in modern everyday English to address a human being in surprise or emotion would likely have been considered inappropriate or even blasphemous within Jewish religious norms. Cultural norms of the ancient world also emphasized the sacred nature of God's name, making it unlikely for such phrases to be used informally or without careful intention.

The text explicitly states that Thomas "said to him" (εἶπεν αὐτῷ), meaning the whole statement is directed at Jesus, not at the Father. There is no grammatical or contextual basis for redirecting Thomas's words to the Father.

The writer assumes that because Thomas addressed Jesus as God, he was declaring Jesus to be identically Yahweh. It is a logical fallacy. To address the King's herald with the titles of the King is not to declare the herald is the King himself. Instead, it is to honor the King through the herald.

 

[Thomas]

Psalm 35.23 uses the phrase “my God and my Lord” to address Yahweh. Thomas uses the phrase “my Lord and my God” to address Jesus. Therefore, Thomas is declaring that Jesus is ontologically identical to Yahweh.

No.

Yes. The scribe has Thomas echo the Psalm, as the scribe well knew – used with any other intention would be a blasphemy.

(This statement, then, sums up John's Gospel, which ends naturally at the end of the chapter – chapter 21 is something of a postscript.)

Who is the God that Jesus is ascending to if he is identical to the God of Psalm 35.23? Make it make sense.

2,000 years of (Christological) exegesis have made that make sense.

Again, let’s review the shaliach principle: “a man's agent is as himself” (John 12.44-45, 14.9; Exodus 3). It is quite simple. It is the best way to understand the text. Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus repeatedly tells his disciples that to look at him is to look at the Father, because he perfectly represents the Father.

In which case I would offer that Jesus manifests the shaliach principle in its ontological fulness – and I would direct you then to the discourse in John 14:10-11
"Do you not believe that I am in the Father and that the Father is in me? The words that I utter to you I do not speak from myself; but the Father, abiding in me, performs his works. Have faith in me, that I am in the Father and that the Father is in me; or else have faith on account of the works themselves."

"On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you... that one is the one who loves me, and whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself to him ... If someone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and will make our home with him" (John 14:20, 21, 23).

The writer assumes that because Thomas addressed Jesus as God, he was declaring Jesus to be identically Yahweh. It is a logical fallacy. To address the King's herald with the titles of the King is not to declare the herald is the King himself. Instead, it is to honor the King through the herald.

To limit the sacred word to the profane alone is a logical fallacy.

The example of the king/herald relationship is not absolute, in that sense, it's just an example.

 

[Ahanu]

Yes.

No.

The phrase “my God” is used over 100 times in the Bible, and in every instance, it refers to YHWH, the one true God of Israel (e.g. Psalm 35:23, Revelation 4:11). For a pious Jew like Thomas to call Jesus "my God" signifies his recognition of Jesus as fully divine.

In Exodus 4.16, God tells Moses “you will be to [Aaron] a deity.” Note the exact same construction is used when YHWH promises to be “to you a deity” to Israel (Gen 17.7).

Here the grammar used for Moses being God is identical to the grammar used for YHWH being God. This must mean the title ’ĕlōhîm is a status that can be granted to humans without making them ontologically identical to God.

Even for the Qumran community “the voice of the Teacher of Righteousness was as the voice of God” (CD 20.28, 32). This way of functional thinking can be found in John 14.10: “The words that I utter to you I do not speak from myself; but the Father . . . performs his works.”

Jews during the time were perfectly fine with applying verses about God from the Psalms to highly exalted human beings. The Qumran fragments on Psalm 37.23 interpret the verse (“It is of the Lord that a man's goings are established”) as concerning “the priest, the Teacher of Righteousness.”

The scribe has Thomas echo the Psalm, as the scribe well knew – used with any other intention would be a blasphemy.

But, @Thomas, the scribe intentionally distinguishes the Word from the High God (John 1.1).

Besides this, it was not blasphemy. The author of Exodus can call Moses God without committing blasphemy (7.1). As Dr. Frisch notes, Philo described Moses as a “divinized mind” and often used Exodus 7.1 to justify calling Moses God.

See Vision of Amram, an Aramaic text in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In this text, Amram tells Moses:

“You will be a god (אל - El) and you will be called an angel.”

Applying “my God” to Jesus in 20.28 is an expression of Jesus as a divine agent.

(This statement, then, sums up John's Gospel, which ends naturally at the end of the chapter – chapter 21 is something of a postscript.)


2,000 years of (Christological) exegesis have made that make sense.


In which case I would offer that Jesus manifests the shaliach principle in its ontological fulness – and I would direct you then to the discourse in John 14:10-11
"Do you not believe that I am in the Father and that the Father is in me? The words that I utter to you I do not speak from myself; but the Father, abiding in me, performs his works. Have faith in me, that I am in the Father and that the Father is in me; or else have faith on account of the works themselves."

"On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you... that one is the one who loves me, and whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself to him ... If someone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and will make our home with him" (John 14:20, 21, 23).

I would stay away from using John 14.20 to prove Jesus is God: “I am in my Father.” The rest of the sentence says: “...and you are in me, and I am in you.” Jesus being in the disciples must make the disciples ontologically God too. Trinitarianism creates more problems than it solves.

To limit the sacred word to the profane alone is a logical fallacy.

In the Exagōgē of Ezekiel the Tragedian, Moses sits on the Divine Throne. This is a sacred position, yet the text maintains a distinction between the One who gives the throne and the one who sits on it.

The example of the king/herald relationship is not absolute, in that sense, it's just an example.

The Shaliach was a formal legal principle in Jewish law: “A man’s agent is like the man himself.” It dictated that an agent could sign contracts, marry people, and speak with the absolute authority of the sender. It is a unity of will and purpose, not being. There’s plenty of sacredness in this ocean to swim in.

 

[Ahanu]

The Qumran fragments on Psalm 37.23 interpret the verse (“It is of the Lord that a man's goings are established”) as concerning “the priest, the Teacher of Righteousness.”

This one is inaccurate. I will provide an accurate example from the Dead Sea Scrolls if I have more time later this week.

 

[Thomas]

No.

LOL, and so the dance goes on.

In Exodus 4.16, God tells Moses ...
“you will be to [Aaron] a deity.” Note the exact same construction is used when YHWH promises to be “to you a deity” to Israel (Gen 17.7).
Here the grammar used for Moses being God is identical to the grammar used for YHWH being God. This must mean the title ’ĕlōhîm is a status that can be granted to humans without making them ontologically identical to God.

Not ontological identy, no. But nor does Jesus make this claim. Jesus claims to be the Son, and He claims the Father is the Father of all, including Himself. What He does claim is ontological unity. He is not of this cosmos (cf John 8:23) – He is talking of Himself, not of the Father.

But, @Thomas, the scribe intentionally distinguishes the Word from the High God (John 1.1).

Hart translates thus: "In the origin there was the Logos, and the Logos was present to God, and the Logos was god", or, in word order, the verse ends "and god was the Logos." He discusses the text in extensive footnotes.
So one in Divinity, two in Person.

Besides this, it was not blasphemy. The author of Exodus can call Moses God without committing blasphemy (7.1). As Dr. Frisch notes, Philo described Moses as a “divinized mind” and often used Exodus 7.1 to justify calling Moses God.

Quite. But this and the many other examples pose another question. Are they merely idiomatic expressions, or do they point to a deeper, more profound reality?

One can ask – was Moses deified at the end of his life? Was he 'taken up' as was Elijah, to walk with God as does Enoch? After all that Moses did, was it his singular failing at Meribah (Numbers 20:12) that denied him not only entry into the Promised Land, but condemned him to an anonymous grave that God Himself dug somewhere on Mount Nebo (Deuteronomy 34:5-6)?

And Jewish speculation on that point does not rule the possibility out.

Applying “my God” to Jesus in 20.28 is an expression of Jesus as a divine agent.

Divine agency covers a multitude of meaning, as prophet, priest, king, as Messiah, and the nature of the agency needs to be examined accordingly, such as that of an Abraham or a Moses, an Enoch or an Elijah, an Ezekiel or a Jeremiah, and so on, because they're not the same.

And the rest of the Prologue of John, 1:2-18, put Jesus in a different league altogether.

I would stay away from using John 14.20 to prove Jesus is God: “I am in my Father.” The rest of the sentence says: “...and you are in me, and I am in you.” Jesus being in the disciples must make the disciples ontologically God too. Trinitarianism creates more problems than it solves.

Not at all. Were He saying "I am He, and He is me, and you are me, and I am you", then that would be problematic for us. But He's not, so you're proposing a problem where there isn't one. He's talking about divine union, adoption.

+++

You cite the Vision of Amram and the Exagōgē of Ezekiel the Tragedian, which is interesting, because I happened upon a different reading. A David Armstrong essay observes that:
"It was typically thought by Ancient Jews that the Torah’s relative silence about Moses’s death and burial implies that the true ending of his story was his heavenly translation to angelic or divine status."
And such texts as you mention, and others, point to this – there was speculation that Moses was not merely abandoned to a grave on the mountain.

What I am suggesting, and as we have both agreed, is that the idea of heaven and earth was not as cut and dried as we today suppose, that there were heavenly hierarchies, and spiritual orders and degrees, then perhaps our readings of these texts allow different possibilities, if we read them in that light.

The appearance of Moses at the Transfiguration (Mark 9:2-8; Matthew 17:1-8; Luke 9:28-36) with Elijah, would suggest, at a minimum, that contemporary Jewish belief saw Moses as somehow rewarded at the end of his life.

Such a view could argue, at the very least, that the divinity of Jesus was less as a one-off – something anomalously true of Jesus – but viewed as the indwelling of the divine presence in human form, was well known and understood in Early Jewish literature, and that later the Greek concept of hypostasis (which the Nicene Fathers most likely got from the Gnostics) is not at all alien to Hebrew thought.

I am not seeking to diminish the Incarnation – He alone claims and is claimed to be the Son of God – but I am suggesting that if we backtrack from hypostasis into Hebrew cosmology then the idea is not unlikely.

This idea of indwelling, known and accepted to the Jews, and which influenced the development of the later Christologies, was something quite other than the mundane status of shaliach.

 

[Ahanu]

LOL, and so the dance goes on.


Not ontological identy, no. But nor does Jesus make this claim. Jesus claims to be the Son, and He claims the Father is the Father of all, including Himself. What He does claim is ontological unity. He is not of this cosmos (cf John 8:23) – He is talking of Himself, not of the Father.

LOL! It does indeed.

Jesus being “not of this cosmos [κόσμου]” (John 8.23) as proof of his unique ontological unity definitely does not make sense of the Book of John, because Jesus uses this exact same Greek phrasing for his disciples later in the text, which would bestow ontological unity on them too:

“I have given them your word and the cosmos has hated them, for they are not of the cosmos [κόσμου] any more than I am of the cosmos” (John 17.14, 16).

“Καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, Ὑμεῖς ἐκ τῶν κάτω ἐστέ, ἐγὼ ἐκ τῶν ἄνω εἰμί· ὑμεῖς ἐκ τούτου τοῦ κόσμου ἐστέ, ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου” (John 8.23).

“ἐγὼ δέδωκα αὐτοῖς τὸν λόγον σου καὶ ὁ κόσμος ἐμίσησεν αὐτούς, ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου καθὼς ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου” (John 17.14).

In John 8.23, Jesus uses the verb εἰμὶ (eimi, “I am”) to declare ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου (“I am not of the cosmos”). In John 17.14, he applies the third-person plural verb εἰσὶν (eisin, “they are”) to his followers, declaring οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου (“they are not of the cosmos”). Jesus even equates their status to his own using the comparative adverb καθὼς (kathōs), meaning “according to the manner in which” or “just as.”

Your conclusion rests entirely on a later metaphysical way of looking at the world anyway: you are either part of the created cosmos, or you share the uncreated nature of God. That is not how first century Jews thought. Creatio ex nihilo wasn’t on their radar, because first century thinkers believed the world was organized out of pre-existing matter (creatio ex materia). Being “not of this cosmos” simply meant Jesus was a higher-tier divine entity, but it did not mean he possessed the exact same ontological unity as the highest God. A being could easily be “not of this cosmos” and be highly divine, without being the High God.

 

[Ahanu]

Hart translates thus: "In the origin there was the Logos, and the Logos was present to God, and the Logos was god", or, in word order, the verse ends "and god was the Logos." He discusses the text in extensive footnotes.
So one in Divinity, two in Person.

I notice a lowercase g. That’s clear subordination.

Philo called the Logos theos (god without the article) . . . just as John 1:1c does. He also referred to the Logos as a second god (deuteros theos) who acted as God's chief agent.

No first century Jew would conclude one in Divinity, two in Person.

 

[Ahanu]

Hermeneutic Stack Exchange: Quoted in its entirety:

"The Greek phrase εἶπεν αὐτῷ (“he said to him”) indicates that Thomas is addressing Jesus directly. The nominative forms ὁ κύριός μου (“my Lord”) and ὁ θεός μου (“my God”) function as vocative forms in Koine Greek. Thomas’s words are not directed to the Father but directly to Jesus. The phrase εἶπεν αὐτῷ (“he said to him”, not not "to them", not one statement for Christ, and the other for the Father) confirms that Thomas is speaking only to one person, to Christ, not the Father. The possessive pronoun μου (“my”) emphasizes Thomas’s personal recognition of Jesus as both Lord and God.

Psalm 35:23, in both its Hebrew form (’ĕlōhay wa-’ăḏōnay) and its Targumic translation (Ĕlohāy ū-Mārēy), serves as a linguistic and theological precedent. The structure and terminology in John 20:28 align with the Psalm’s pairing of divine titles. This suggests that Thomas’ exclamation was not an innovation but was deeply rooted in the Jewish linguistic and theological tradition of addressing God.

There is a problem. The author of the Gospel of John was writing original, native Greek. He was not translating from Hebrew. The only verses like John 20.28 that exhibit the grammatical Hebraism in the Greek New Testament are quotes from the Greek Septuagint. Scholars agree that the Gospel of John rarely uses awkward Hebraisms (a Hebrew way of speaking that has been awkwardly shoved into Greek grammar). When John writes ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou, he is strictly following native Greek rules. Because native Greek rules say that repeating the pronoun means you are talking about two different people, Thomas's exclamation must be directed at two different referents: Jesus (“My Lord”) and the Father (“and also my God”).

If a native Greek speaker wanted to say “My Lord and God” and apply both titles to a single person, they would not repeat the pronoun. They would group the titles together under one pronoun to show they belong to the same person, just like this: ho kyrios kai theos mou (The Lord and God of me). If a native Greek speaker does repeat the pronoun (ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou), the rules of Greek grammar mean that they are talking about two completely different people (e.g., “My Lord [Jesus], and my God [the Father]”).

 

[Ahanu]

Thomas addresses Jesus as ho theos, which unambiguously means the God, the One True God, God in the absolute sense.

It is an unwarranted conclusion.

Here is yet another grammatical argument! Look at the end of John 1.1: “and the Word was god.” Here, “god” has no “the.” It describes the divine nature of the Word. When Thomas says “the God” in 20.28, he is using an anaphoric article to point back to the second use of God in John 1.1. Thomas is basically saying, “You are the [aforementioned] god!”

 

[Thomas]

Jesus being “not of this cosmos [κόσμου]” (John 8.23) as proof of his unique ontological unity definitely does not make sense of the Book of John, because Jesus uses this exact same Greek phrasing for his disciples later in the text, which would bestow ontological unity on them too ...

Yes, by incorporation into Himself. Both John and Paul understood it that way. Scripture speaks of sonship, whereas later theologies speak of theosis.

Your conclusion rests entirely on a later metaphysical way of looking at the world anyway: you are either part of the created cosmos, or you share the uncreated nature of God. That is not how first century Jews thought.

I disagree, and I rather think it's just as the early Jewish-Christians thought.

Bart Ehrman has something to say about Paul's 'High Christology':

The 'Christ Hymn' of Philippians 2:6-10 is, in his words, "an extremely high Christology." For Paul, Christ is a divine being come into the world; and was made equal with God:
"Jesus, who, subsisting in a god’s form (ie 'in the manner of'), did not deem existing in the manner of a god a thing to be grasped (ie 'held onto'), but instead emptied himself ('divested, emptied, impoverished)', taking a slave’s form, coming to be in a likeness of human beings; and, being found in appearance as a human being ('outward aspect as opposed to inward reality'), he reduced ('humbled' or 'abased') himself, becoming obedient all the way to death, and a death by a cross. For which reason God also exalted him on high and graced him with the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee—of beings heavenly and earthly and subterranean—should bend, and every tongue gladly confess that Jesus the Anointed is Lord, for the glory of God the Father."
(Hart's explanation of his translated in parenthesis)

Galatians 4:4: "When the fullness of time came, God sent his son, born from a woman, born under the law." This statement makes sense if Paul believes that Christ was in fact a pre-existent divine being.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, God’s "Wisdom" can be likened to a divine hypostasis; as somnething of God that takes on its own form and existence. 'Wisdom' as a divine agent through whom God creates all things (cf Proverbs 8) – as God's Wisdom, it is God, and an image of God, or God manifest in a Divine Act.

Ehrman argues that at the least, Paul sees Jesus as "the Angel of the Lord" coming into this world: "the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God" (2 Corinthians 4:4). But as we see in Exodus 3, an "angel of the Lord" appears to him in the burning bush, but then says "I am the God of thy father" (3:6) – a fluid continuity.

Paul declares:
"For even though there are those who are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father—out of whom come all things, and we for him—and one Lord, Jesus the Anointed—through whom
come all things, and we through him" (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)
Hart details this at some length in a footnote to his translation of the NT:
"Paul should be taken fairly literally in these two verses: He really means that, in a sense, there are such things as “gods” in heaven and earth, though as a pious Jew and Christian he would more naturally call them angels or demons. Most Jews, Christians, and educated pagans of late antiquity drew an absolute distinction between, on the one hand, the spiritual or divine powers that rule the nations and inhabit the cosmos and, on the other, the one God who is the source of existence from whom everything comes forth (gods no less than other limited beings). For Paul, these “powers on high,” “archons,” and so on are the gods worshipped by the several nations, but are ultimately only angelic governors of the cosmos, often either rebellious or incompetent; this seems to include even the angel governing Israel, who, according to Galatians, delivered a defective version of the Law to Moses. In Paul's time, the idea of angelic “gods of the nations” would have been, for instance, an unproblematic interpretation of Deuteronomy 32:8-9, which describes God as dividing the nations among the “sons of God [El],” as well as 32: 43, in which these same sons of God, along with the nations they govern, are called to make obeisance to God (in the Rabbinic Masoretic Text
of the Hebrew, which is a later synthetic redaction, the phrase in v. 8 becomes “sons of Israel,” but in the Septuagint—the favored text of Paul and much of the Greek-speaking Diaspora—it was still “sons of God” or perhaps, in some copies, “angels of God”; and in v. 43 the Masoretic Text omits the reference to the sons of God and the angels of the nations altogether, though, again, they are still present in the Septuagintal version). As will emerge in chapter fifteen below, it is a large part of Paul's understanding of the gospel that these cosmic gods have been conquered and placed in proper order by Christ and will, at the end of time, be handed over in proper subordination to the Father so that God may be “all in all.”

To return to Ehrman:
"It is worth stressing that Paul does indeed speak about Jesus as God, as we have seen. That does not mean that Christ is God the Father Almighty. Paul certainly thought Jesus was God in a certain sense – but he does not think that he was the Father. He was an angelic, divine being before coming into the world; he was the Angel of the Lord; he was eventually exalted to be equal with God and worthy of all of God’s honor and worship. And so I now have no trouble recognizing that in fact Paul could indeed flat out call Jesus God, as he appears to do in Romans 9:5."

"If someone as early in the Christian tradition as Paul can see Christ as an incarnate divine being, it is no surprise that the same view emerges later in the tradition as well. Nowhere does it emerge more clearly or forcefully than in the Gospel of John."

And to echo Hart's note, if we agree that Jesus is not the Father, and we do, and place Him on the scale of Divine Beings, then He is at the very top, alone and unique, with the rest arrayed beneath Him, to be judged at the end of the age. Quite how this relationship works is part of the Mystery: Jesus is God, but He is not the Father, but He is not other than, nor another, God ...

 

[Ahanu]

I disagree, and I rather think it's just as the early Jewish-Christians thought.

You disagree based on what?

Show us where Paul or John assert absolute nothing instead of relative nonbeing.

I'll wait.

Bart Ehrman has something to say about Paul's 'High Christology':

Okay. Let's get straight to the point: Do Ehrman or Hart accept a strict divide between created and uncreated in first century Jewish thought?

Most Christian theologians used Romans 4.17 to argue creatio ex nihilo ("God . . . calls into existence the things that do not exist"). Paul's use of mē onta in the text defeats their argument. He is saying God takes what is chaotic, unformed, or spiritually dead and calls it into its proper existence. This has implications for Philippians 2.

 

[Ahanu]

In the Hebrew Scriptures, God’s "Wisdom" can be likened to a divine hypostasis; as somnething of God that takes on its own form and existence. 'Wisdom' as a divine agent through whom God creates all things (cf Proverbs 8) – as God's Wisdom, it is God, and an image of God, or God manifest in a Divine Act.

The primordial waters (the deep) were never created. Because the waters already existed, Wisdom could not possibly be the agent through whom God created all things out of nothing. Note God prepared the heavens and set a compass upon the face of the depth (Proverbs 8.26-27). This indicates a preparation and establishing of something already existent.

 

[Ahanu]

The primordial waters (the deep) were never created. Because the waters already existed, Wisdom could not possibly be the agent through whom God created all things out of nothing. Note God prepared the heavens and set a compass upon the face of the depth (Proverbs 8.26-27). This indicates a preparation and establishing of something already existent.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, God’s "Wisdom" can be likened to a divine hypostasis; as somnething of God that takes on its own form and existence. 'Wisdom' as a divine agent through whom God creates all things (cf Proverbs 8) – as God's Wisdom, it is God, and an image of God, or God manifest in a Divine Act.

“Middle Platonic cosmology further complicated Christian theology. Earlier formulations, whether pagan or Christian (as we see with Justin [Martyr]) had held that hylē, unformed matter, had preexisted along with theos, the high god. Cosmos, the ordered material universe, was in turn eternally generated through the mediation of the demiurge, a lower divine power. The coeternity of all these dimensions of reality insulated God from any imputation of change: changelessness was an essential aspect of his perfection.

As the metaphysical opposite of theos, hylē represented imperfection and change. Despite the impress of divine forms, primal matter could communicate its intrinsic deficiencies to cosmos, especially in the sublunar realm. Hylē thus provided this system with a ready explanation for the problem of evil: unformed matter, not the perfect god, was the ultimate source of the world’s imperfections. In the crucible of developing second-century Christianities, however, various theologians fretted over this idea. Did preexistent matter imply some kind of limit on God? Why would the good God pronounce creation “good” if it were based in and on deficient matter? And to what degree would matter imply or enact a cosmic realm independent of God?

It was in these circumstances, as a battle between Christian intellectuals over the moral status of matter, that the (counterintuitive) idea of creation ex nihilo, out of nothing, eventually took hold. Creation ex nihilo drove the arguments fueling later Christologies. If only God was God, and if he “created” out of nothing, then was anything not-God by definition part of his creation? To which pole of this binary should Christ be assigned? Theologically (thus, philosophically) the issue was contingency.

Was the Son independently God? If so, was that not ditheism? If not, was that then Sabellianism, a too-close identification of Father and Son? Was Christ, as Son, not contingent on the Father? Simple vocabulary pulled in one direction: contingency. But concerns about the goodness of creation, the mechanisms of salvation, and the oneness of God pulled in another direction: equality. The Son, some theologians began to insist, was “begotten” of the Father, not—as by adoption or by creation—“made.” By being divinely “begotten,” the Son shared in the Father’s ousia. It took the genius of Origen, in the early third century, to frame a Christology that was both radically egalitarian and subordinationist at the same time. Origen distinguished between God and everything else in terms of “body” and in terms of contingency. Only the triune God, he taught, was completely self-generated, and only God was absolutely without body of any sort. The inner dynamics of the triune God, however, accommodated distinction, the scope for God the Father being unrestricted; for the Son, involved with secondary, temporal, material creation; for the Holy Spirit, restricted to the (true) church. A century later, Alexandria would be convulsed over these questions, the battle lines drawn between the bishop, Alexander, and a priest, Arius.”
-Paula Fredriksen

 

[Thomas]

You disagree based on what?

I disagree based on your presenting my claim as a dichotomy: "Your conclusion rests entirely on a later metaphysical way of looking at the world anyway: you are either part of the created cosmos, or you share the uncreated nature of God. That is not how first century Jews thought."

I rather see it not as either/or, but both. I would cite both metaphysics and Hebrew speculation.

Show us where Paul or John assert absolute nothing instead of relative nonbeing.

Now you're asking Paul or John to discuss later philosophical principles, but the discussion can be founded on scripture.
John 1:3 "All things came to be through him, and without him came to be not a single thing that has come to be."
1 Corinthians 8:6 "yet for us there is one God, the Father – out of whom come all things, and we for him – and one Lord, Jesus the Anointed – through whom come all things"
Acts 17:24 "The God who made the cosmos and everything in it"
Colossians 1:16-17 "because in him (Christ) were created all things in the heavens and on earth, the visible as well as the invisible (whether Thrones or Lordships or Archons or Powers); all things were created through him and for him; and he is before all things, and all things hold together in him".

Okay. Let's get straight to the point: Do Ehrman or Hart accept a strict divide between created and uncreated in first century Jewish thought?

Don't know about Ehrman, but I would have thought Hart does not.

Most Christian theologians used Romans 4.17 to argue creatio ex nihilo ("...

... and other texts.

... Paul's use of mē onta in the text defeats their argument. He is saying God takes what is chaotic, unformed, or spiritually dead and calls it into its proper existence.

Well that's your gloss, but I still don't see your problem?

 

[Thomas]

The primordial waters (the deep) were never created. Because the waters already existed ...

Did they though? Just a point in passing ...

Certainly the ancient reading assumes such. That God or the gods shaped form from formless matter, and the various schools, religious and philosophical, debated that, and I'm not about to argue otherwise.

I'm not arguing that John or Paul promote it or refute creatio ex nihilo – it post-dates them. But they did believe creation was by the Will and Word of God.

Wisdom could not possibly be the agent through whom God created all things out of nothing. Note God prepared the heavens and set a compass upon the face of the depth (Proverbs 8.26-27). This indicates a preparation and establishing of something already existent.

Well you say that, but that's not what the text says:
v23: "When there were no depths (תְּהוֹם tehôm) I was brought forth".
v27: "When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth (תְּהוֹם tehôm)".

 

[Thomas]

Deleted as irrelevant.

 

[Ahanu]

Well you say that, but that's not what the text says:
v23: "When there were no depths (תְּהוֹם tehôm) I was brought forth".
v27: "When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth (תְּהוֹם tehôm)".

Of course it is what the text says. Just to be clear, what is “it” here? Creation is not ex nihilo; it is ex materia.

I think you mean verse 24, not 23. It says:

בְּאֵין־תְּהֹמ֥וֹת חוֹלָ֑לְתִּי בְּאֵ֥ין מַ֝עְיָנ֗וֹת נִכְבַּדֵּי־מָֽיִם

Some scholars argue that if Wisdom was brought forth "when there were no depths," it implies a point in time when the material world did not exist at all. From this, they infer that God or Wisdom must have created the depths out of nothing. This is the creatio ex nihilo view.

However, the verb חוֹלָ֑לְתִּי (ḥōlāltî) suggests a birth or writhing into existence within a process, not a creation from nothing. The phrase "when there were no depths" refers to a time before the primordial waters were organized into the specific boundaries and springs we see today. In Ancient Near Eastern thought, non-existence often referred to a lack of order and definition rather than a lack of physical matter. This is the creatio ex materia view.

 

[Ahanu]

Well that's your gloss, but I still don't see your problem?

See above. “Creation ex nihilo drove the arguments fueling later Christologies.” Trinitarianism is a later Christology that would not exist without the following innovation: creatio ex nihilo.