Jehovah's Witnesses: Why doesn't Thomas get rebuked by Jesus in John 20 for blasphemy?

In John 20:28, John refers to Jesus in Greek as "Ho kyrios moy kai ho theos moy". This translates literally as "the Lord of me and THE God of me".

Why does Jesus, in John 20:29, affirm Thomas for having come to this realization? If Jesus really wasn't the Lord and THE God of Thomas, why didn't Jesus correct him for making either a false assumption or a blasphemous statement?


***Wendi888, I did not say this verse proved anything, I simply asked why Jesus didn't correct Thomas.

9 Answers

  • Mindy
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Although Jesus never claimed to be God, as Jehovah’s appointed ruler he is identified in Isaiah’s prophecy by the terms “Mighty God” and “Prince of Peace.” Isaiah’s prophecy adds: “To the abundance of the princely rule and to peace there will be no end.” (Isaiah 9:6, 7) So, as the “Prince”—the son of the Great King, Jehovah—Jesus will serve as Ruler of the heavenly government of “God Almighty.”—Exodus 6:3.

    Yet, a person may ask, ‘In what sense is Jesus a “Mighty God,” and didn’t the apostle John say that Jesus is himself God?’ In the King James version of the Bible, John 1:1 reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Some argue that this means that “the Word,” who was born on earth as the baby Jesus, is Almighty God himself. Is this true?

    If this verse were interpreted to mean Jesus was himself God Almighty, it would contradict the preceding statement, “the Word was with God.” Someone who is “with” another person cannot be the same as that other person. Many Bible translations thus draw a distinction, making clear that the Word was not God Almighty.

    For example, a sampling of Bible translations say the following: “The Word was a God,” “a god was the Word,” and “the Word was divine.”

    Here are just a few (there are MANY others) of those other Bible translation samplings that render John 1:1 as showing that Jesus Christ as the Word was NOT Almighty God:

    1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

    1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

    1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

    1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

    1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

    1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

    1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

    1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

    1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

    The following video sheds more light on the true meaning of John 1:1 (consequently, the video is helping THOUSANDS to come to a more accurate knowledge of the Bible's truth):

    Youtube thumbnail


    {Real Truth about John 1:1}

    Bible verses that in the Greek language have a construction similar to that of John 1:1 use the expression “a god.” For example, when referring to Herod Agrippa I, the crowds shouted: ‘It is a god speaking.’ And when Paul survived a bite by a poisonous snake, the people said: “He is a god.” (Acts 12:22; 28:3-6) It is in harmony with both Greek grammar and Bible teaching to speak of the Word as, not God, but “a god.”—John 1:1.

    Consider how John identified “the Word” in the first chapter of his Gospel. “The Word became flesh and resided among us,” he wrote, “and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs [not to God but] to an only-begotten son from a father.” So “the Word,” who became flesh, lived on the earth as the man Jesus and was seen by people. Therefore, he could not have been Almighty God, regarding whom John says: “No man has seen God at any time.”—John 1:14, 18.

    ‘Why, then,’ one may ask, ‘did Thomas exclaim when seeing the resurrected Jesus, “My Lord and my God!”?’ As already noted, Jesus is a god in the sense of being divine, but he is not the Father. Jesus had just told Mary Magdalene: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.” Remember, too, why John wrote his Gospel. Three verses after the account about Thomas, John explained that he wrote so that people “may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God”—not that he IS God.—John 20:17, 28, 31.

    Addressing the resurrected Jesus, the apostle Thomas exclaimed: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28) This and other accounts were “written down that [we] may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.” And Thomas was not contradicting Jesus, who had sent His disciples the message: “I am ascending to . . . my God and your God.” (John 20:17, 30, 31) So Thomas did not think that Jesus was Almighty God. Thomas may have addressed Jesus as “my God” in the sense of Christ’s being “a god,” though not “the only true God.” (John 1:1; 17:1-3) Or by saying “my God,” Thomas may have been acknowledging Jesus as God’s Spokesman and Representative, even as others addressed an angelic messenger as though he were Jehovah.

    —Compare Genesis 18:1-5, 22-33; 31:11-13; 32:24-30; Judges 2:1-5; 6:11-15; 13:20-22.

    According to the Bible, Jesus had a prehuman existence as the Word. When on the earth, he WAS NOT a divine God-man. He was wholly human, though perfect, as Adam originally was and as such he is rightly called in the Bible, the last Adam at 1 Corinthians 15:45-47. Was the first Adam a divine God-man, a "incarnation" or God the Son? Nope. He was the son of God as recorded at Luke 3:38.

    As the last Adam, Jesus likewise WAS NOT a divine God-man, a "incarnation", God the Son. Nope. Jesus was and is the son of God, more specifically, he is God's ONLY BEGOTTEN son.

    Since Jesus’ resurrection, he has been an exalted immortal spirit ever subordinate to God. Clearly, therefore, the Scriptures DO NOT support the idea of “the divinity of Christ” as even the following well respected reference source of this world attest to with regards to the un-holy Trinity doctrine:

    The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”

    —(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

    The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”

    —(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

    In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”

    —(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

    According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”

    —(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

    John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”

    —(New York, 1965), p. 899.

    Finally, concerning the reason as to WHY many of Jehovah's Witnesses have not as of yet responded, today (2/14/10) is Sunday and they have their meetings at their respective Kingdom Halls today, are out in the actual door to door preaching and teaching work concerning God's Kingdom and are in preparation for the coming annual memorial commemorating the death of Jesus Christ. In other words, they are doing much, much more important things right now then simply sitting by their computers waiting to answer questions on Yahoo! Answers that anyone who is sincere can EASILY look up by doing a simple search here.

    There is absolutely, positively no way in either this life or the next one that's coming that Jesus Christ IS the Almighty God. Those that are "confused" have become so for the reason of NOT remaining in Jesus Word given to him by his Father (John 7:16, 8:31, 32).

    ~Edit @ Sonny Daye regarding Wendi888~: "Wendi888, I did not say this verse proved anything, I simply asked why Jesus didn't correct Thomas."

    Okay, and Wendi888 answered the question as to why Jesus didn't correct Thomas. In her 1st opening statement she wrote; "Jesus is a god".

    Truthfully, I'm just waiting for Sonny Daye to pick as "best answer" someone who isn't one of Jehovah's Witnesses... even though this question is clearly directed to and asked of them.


    Source(s): I proudly study the Bible intensely with Jehovah's Witnesses.
  • 4 years ago

    Why would Jesus rebuke Thomas?... Jesus is Lord and he is of Divine nature. I'm sure to doubting Thomas, after sticking his finger in the hole {Blaugh! Disgusting!} Believed Jesus to be his Savior, god, Master, and Lord... Thomas did not call him Jehovah. It is a matter of Scholars opinion, that the NWT is the most accurate translation. With quite literal translation(s) from original texts. So, you need to check your facts. I am a logical, thinking, reasoning person. With an analytical mind. You have no call to be insulting ppl, saying they follow / believe anything. Not true. The Word was with God. (John1:8) And if you keep reading a little further, you read: "This one was in the beginning with God." (Jo1:2) "So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory that belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth." At 1 Kings 8:27 we read: "But will God truly dwell upon the earth? Look! The heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens, themselves cannot contain you; how much less then, this house that I have built." From these Scriptures alone, we can discern that 1)God cannot dwell upon the earth~ Jesus did. 2)The heavens cannot contain God. 3) Not even a built house can contain God. Jesus lived here on earth; in a house. 4) Not the womb of a woman, could contain God Almighty, The Sovereign Lord of the universe. Jehovah is God 'alone.' Ps 83:18; 6:4; Gen 17:1. He does not / will not share His glory~ Isa 42:8. To deny the Son, you may perish in the way.~Ps 2:12.# Phil 2:5-11~ Christ Not Equal to God. 1 Cor 15:28~ Christ subject to God. John1:18~ No Man Has Seen God. John 14:28~Christ said: "The Father is greater than I am." 1 Tim 2:5~ One mediator between God and man. 1 Cor 11:3~ God is the head of Christ. Heb 5:8~ Although he was a Son, he learned obedience. ~~~Those whom identified Jesus as the Son of Jehovah God~~~ The angel Gabriel @ Lu 1:32; Mt 1:18-25. Elizabeth & (the unborn John the Baptizer) @ Lu 1:41-45. Angels @ Lu 2:9-11. Shepherds @ Lu 2:17 (see also Lu 2:8-20) Simeon @ Lu 2:25-35. Anna @ Lu 2:36-38. Andrew @ Jo 1:40,41. Nathanael @ Jo 1:49. Nicodemus @ Jo 3:3. Samaritan men @ Jo 4:42. Samaritan woman @ Jo4:25,29. Peter @ Acts 3:13,26, 10:34,38; 1 Pe 3:22. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *Jehovah God @ Mt 3:17; Lu 2:6,9,16,17; Jo 1:29-34,36. *Jesus @ Jo 3:16-18; Mt 3:16,17; Jo 4:10, 25, 26, 17:1-26 esp v. 5; ................Lu 4:16-18-21; 31-34; Mk 14:61,62. *Satan @ Matt 4:1-11. *Demons @ Mk 1:23,24,34; Lu 4:41; Isa 50:5,8,9. * Do you actually believe that Jehovah God, His only-begotten Son, Jesus; also Satan the devil and the fallen angels = demons: Do Not Know Who Jehovah God and Jesus are? #The trinity denys the Son. It is a lie and tool of satan to mislead humans away from Jehovah God. Do some more research ~ I did. Through Coptic Greek texts, and more.

  • 1 decade ago

    i wish they would get on here and answer this. i need the answer to this just as much. i am still torn with what they believe and what everyone else believes. (it is really hard to re-write your whole belief system).

    i imagine they have not answered because they don't have a good enough answer to explain this. i will take note to ask them next time they come to my door.

    what i am leaning towards though is that maybe he wasn't corrected because he didn't make a false or blasphemous statement. perhaps he spoke the truth as it is. i say perhaps because i can't quite get to that point where i could say Jesus is THE God of anything.. but perhaps this is THE proof that he is.

    ***EDIT*** i hope you do not mind. i emailed your question to 2 JW's in hopes that they may answer. i would really like to know their take on this.

    **EDIT** maybe i shouldn't have. some can't answer without being insulting. i might add that one could become confused because there are things that don't add up in this religion. i don't follow the whole "God's spirit directted organization" and false prophesies all in the same breath. but that could just be me. if i am the only one confused by that then so be it. but i can say i am closer to God now than i have ever been, so no, i am not confused because i am NOT remaining in Jesus Word given to him by his Father. it is absurd to assume such a thing.

    but i am not about to say i know a religion with a better answer to anything because i don't. i think at this point they are all as wrong as the next. and in that i may be wrong.. but i doubt it.

    i had one explain the whole Jesus is God thing in somewhat understandable terms actually. and it is the only reason i might consider leaning towards this not being a false statement on Thomas part.;_ylt=AupL1...

    anyways.. who knows. i don't think i can grasp the whole god word being used so loosely. i wouldn't call Satan the god of anything... but we also speak differently than they did then.

    Source(s): confused former Jehovah Witness
  • D
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    And in John 8:58 when Jesus states, "Before Abraham was, I AM" and they then tried to stone him for him claiming to be divine.

    The text in Greek specifically states, "Ego Eimi" which means "I AM" and not "I existed" as the NWT has it translated. If he had just said, "Before Abraham was, I existed." why would they have started casting stones at him?

    Also, 1 Cor 10:4 - Paul states that the Christ was the one following the Israelites through the wilderness.

    Isaiah 43:11 - Beside me, there is no saviour.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Jesus is a god. “God” means a strong one. Christ is called “The mighty God” at Isaiah 9:6 and “the only-begotten god” at John 1:18. . Jehovah is not the only god or strong one. The very fact that he is called the Almighty God indicates that there are other gods not so mighty, not almighty like him. There is no objection to Thomas’ referring to Jesus as a god. Such would be in harmony with the fact that Jesus, in his prehuman existence, certainly was a god, that is, a powerful, divine person. And he certainly has been that since his death and resurrection to heavenly life.

    So Thomas could call Jesus God, but not THE God, and three verses later Jesus is called “the Son of God.” Compare John 1:18: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” So there was no objection to John’s reporting that Thomas addressed Jesus as a deity, and certainly John does not say that Thomas’ address to Jesus was to make us believe that Jesus was The God, but says it was to make us believe Jesus was God’s Son.

    In this same chapter (20:17) Jesus said: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” He was not ascending to himself. He would also not call himself "my God" but myself.

    The use of the definite article (ho) was made before the form of address to anybody, so Thomas’ use of the definite article does not force his use of God to mean The God, Jehovah. Jehovah was not begotten as Jesus was, but existed without beginning.

    This is not just something made up for the Watchtower or Jehovah's Witnesses. John Martin Creed, as Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, observed: “The adoring exclamation of St. Thomas ‘my Lord and my God’ (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary Magdalene (v. 17): ‘Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.’

    Compare also John 20:31: "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." Again Jesus was called the Son of God. All doubt as to what Thomas may have meant is dispelled here. The Bible writer John clearly says that Jesus is the Son of God, not almighty God himself.

    So Jehovah is The God; Jesus Christ is one of many who are called gods. Satan is called “the god of this system of things,” Moses was said to be as god to Pharaoh, and in the Psalms men are called gods, and Jesus referred to this and argued that hence the Jews should not say he blasphemed when he said he was God’s Son. And the apostle Paul said there are many called gods. But to argue that these many different ones called gods are, by virtue of this fact, The God Jehovah would be absurd. Similarly, it is absurd to try to argue that Thomas’ reference to Jesus as god proves Jesus is The God, and doubly so when just three verses later Jesus is identified as God’s Son.—2 Cor. 4:4; Ex. 7:1; Ps. 82:6; John 10:35; 1 Cor. 8:5.

  • 1 decade ago

    Because Thomas spoke the truth

  • Popeye
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Because Jesus IS God in human flesh!!!

    Pare of the Eternal Godhead.....

    God the Father,

    God the Son

    God the Spirit!

    What is so hard to understand about that???

  • 1 decade ago

    luckily, the watchtower supplies the context for jws.

    so it is clear that when thomas says god, he means it in the sense of michael the archangel.

    same as when he said he would rebuild the temple in 3 days, he meant god would reduce it to component molecules, and he spoke of the temple of his body, which means invisible spirit.

    all hail the watchtower for these clear simple teachings which are fully bible based and not made up to cover failed prophecies.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    that, and rev. where jesus mentions 2-3 times ."i am the alpha and the omega' exactly what god says to isaiah in chs.41, 43, 48. 'i am the first and the last.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.