Now that I’ve spent several posts arguing (quite persuasively I might add) that Jesus is not presented as God in the New Testament, I’m going to quietly admit that he is in fact called God and then weasel my way out of it. I hope you enjoy watching me squirm. It’s disgusting really.

Jesus as God in the New Testament

Once in the New Testament, Jesus is unambiguously referred to as God. It takes place after his resurrection. Doubting Thomas (coincidence?) puts his hands inside Jesus’ wounds and in astonishment proclaims, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28) Can’t really argue with that. But I will anyway, if only because I need to find some way to justify the arrogance in my heart and my flagrant rejection of the truth.

Apart from John 20:28, there are three other texts that may use the word “God” to describe Jesus. (Some of you are saying, “I know of more than three others.” Well, there are three that I’m dealing with in this post. I’ll get to Hebrews 1 and John 1 in later posts.) The first is Romans 9:4-5:

They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. (NRSV)

Now, scholars have a lot of difficulty figuring out how to understand the grammar here. (Remember, the Bible wasn’t written in English.) The last verse could mean:

(1) . . . and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is God over all, blessed forever.

Or it could go like this:

(2) . . . and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all. May God be blessed forever.

(The words “may” and “be” in such a construction as “may such and such be blessed” are always implied in Greek.)

Or it could go like this:

(3) . . . and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah. May God, who is over all, be blessed forever.

Now, none of these translations is ideal. I think options (2) and (3) make the most sense. Paul is blessing God for sending the Messiah. Whether it is God who is “over all” or the Messiah is irrelevant, since the Messiah’s job is precisely to rule over all in the name of God. But the Greek here is just really ambiguous. Maybe Paul sneezed in the middle of this sentence as Tertius was taking dictation. Whatever the case, I lucked out. One less text for me to deal with.

The second text is Titus 2:13:

While we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

The NRSV translates it so that both titles, God and Savior, are ascribed to Jesus Christ. Another translation is possible here, however.

While we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of the great God, and our Savior Jesus Christ.

Here, God and Jesus are distinct. You have “the great God” on the one hand, and “our Savior Jesus Christ” on the other. The problem for this translation is that there is no definite article (“the”) in front of “our Savior Jesus Christ.” Now in English, that wouldn’t be a problem because “our” is sufficient to specify definiteness with regard to the noun. But in Greek, usually, there is a definite article in addition to any possessive pronouns or adjectives. So the problem is, there is only one definite article, and it is in front of “great God.” The Greek literally reads: “the great God and savior of us Jesus Christ.” However, it is not always the case that a definite noun takes a definite article in the Greek. For one clear example of a definite noun that does not take a definite article, we don’t have to go outside the Pastorals. 1 Tim 1:1 reads:

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope.

The Greek literally reads:

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God, savior of us, and Christ Jesus, the hope of us.

Here, God and Jesus are indisputably distinguished, but “savior of us” does not take a definite article. This is only one example of several where a definite noun does not take a definite article. So, with respect to Titus 2:13, the translation problem cannot really be resolved with any certainty. I think it makes more sense of the passage that God and Jesus are distinguished, but it could go either way.

The third text of relevance is 2 Pet 1:1:

To those who have received a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ

Here we have the same exact problem we had with Titus 2:13. Is Jesus Christ both “God and Savior” or should we distinguish God from “Savior Jesus Christ.” There are plenty of unambiguous examples throughout the epistles in which God and Jesus are distinguished yet placed side by side. But again, the Greek is ambiguous. Here “God of us” does take a definite article, but “Savior Jesus Christ” does not. As we’ve already noted, usually a definite noun takes a definite article, but there are exceptions. Again, we are left at an impasse. People who want Jesus to be God are going to argue for the one translation, people who need the Bible to say otherwise are going to argue for the other translation. Now you might think I fall into the latter camp, since the thesis of this series is that the New Testament never ascribes full divinity to Jesus. But you’d be wrong.

In fact, let’s take all three of these ambiguous texts—Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, 2 Pet 1:1—and let’s say they all unambiguously apply the word “God” to Jesus. Let’s do that. I can cede this ground because it’s just a red herring. I have y’all Trinitarians outflanked. Everything in this post up until this point has just been to mess with you.

The word “God” in the ancient world, and not least in Judaism, had a wide range of meaning, and faithful, monotheistic Jews frequently applied the title “God” to human beings and celestial beings they knew full well were not on par with the one true God whose name is Yahweh.

Gods in the Hebrew Bible

This point is so obvious, I’ll use, let’s see, say, Charles Spurgeon to make it for me. Spurgeon, who believed (wrongly, but not too far off from the Johannine Jesus) that the “gods” of Psalm 82:6 referred to Israelite judges, wrote:

It is, of course, to civil governors, especially those entrusted with the administration of justice, that the prophet addresses this stern admonition. He calls them “the gods,” and “the sons of the Most High.” To the people of Israel this kind of appellation would not seem over bold: for it was applied to judges in well known texts of the Law of Moses. Thus, in the code of civil statutes delivered at Sinai, it is said, Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people. Ex 22:28.

Spurgeon goes on rightly to cite Exod 21:6 and 22:8-9 as further examples. In both texts, the word Elohim (God) is used to refer to the local magistrate. Spurgeon also cites 1 Chron 29:23 in which Solomon is said to sit upon the throne of Yahweh. He then approvingly quotes Joseph Caryl:

God himself hath put his own name upon magistrates, to mind them of their duty, or for a twofold end: First, that being called gods, they should judge and rule as God doth, or with a mind like God, free from the mixture of a private or passionate spirit, and filled with a love to, and a delight in, impartial judgment and righteousness. Secondly, that being called gods, all men might learn their duty, freely to submit to them and duly to honour them; seeing any dishonour done to them reflects upon God whose name they bear.

Thus, according to that infamous liberal Charles Spurgeon, conferring the title “God” upon an agent invested with divine authority was not only not inappropriate, it pointed beyond the agent to the true God, thus bringing glory to God.

Another, similar, use of God is found earlier in Exodus:

He [Aaron] indeed shall speak for you [Moses] to the people; he shall be your mouth, and you shall be his God. (4:16)

Yahweh said to Moses, “See, I have made you God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.” (7:1)

Is Yahweh letting Moses in on the Trinitarian circle here, or what? Obviously, the word Elohim referred to more than just a celestial deity. It could also be used, as here, to speak of the quality of an agent’s authority. Moses has been made “God” to both Aaron and to Pharaoh. In other words, Moses has been invested with God’s authority. With that authority comes the title. The title can be descriptive of function, not nature. In fact, although the Elohim singular form El was another generic word for “God,” etymologically it was probably a word with something like the meaning “power” or “ability.” For instance, in Gen 31:29, Laban is scolding Jacob for having fled, and says to him, “It is within my power to do you harm.” The word for “power” here is El, the same word generally used for God. Thus, to confer the title Elohim upon someone may have been a way of recognizing that person’s possession of a certain authoritative function within a given sphere (e.g., “by the power vested in me”). The title was especially appropriate whenever that authority had been conferred upon a human or angelic being by a celestial deity—in Israel’s case, Yahweh. We will examine two further examples of this before moving on to the second temple period.

Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever.
Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity;
you love righteousness and hate wickedness.
Therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.
(Psa 45:6-7)

Here we have a figure who is addressed as “God” at the outset, but is then distinguished from “God” later on. One God is obviously superior to the other, because the one is anointing the other. So who is the inferior God? Christians have sometimes taken this to be a “Messianic” prophecy, and it was indeed interpreted that way by the author of Hebrews (we’ll get there in a later post). But what did this psalm mean originally? What was its purpose? Well, it’s right there in the superscription.

To the leader: according to Lilies. Of the Korahites. A Maskil. A love song.

“To the leader” refers to the musical director. “According to Lilies” is probably a reference to the melody to which the psalm should be played. “The Korahites” were a group of worship leaders who collected and wrote psalms. “A Maskil” refers to a psalm that is particularly artful, or poetic. And finally, “A love song.” Most scholars believe that this was a psalm composed in order to be played at a royal wedding, and indeed, the content of the psalm bears this out. The first half of the psalm (vv. 1-9) addresses the king, who is the groom. The second half (vv.10-15) addresses the king’s bride. The final two verses (16-17) confer a blessing on the offspring of the bride and groom. I will quote the entire psalm below, but I will emphasize in bold-type only the verses that are relevant for our purposes:

My heart overflows with a goodly theme;
I address my verses to the king;
my tongue is like the pen of a ready scribe.
You are the most handsome of men;
grace is poured upon your lips;
therefore God has blessed you forever.
Gird your sword on your thigh, O mighty one,
in your glory and majesty.
In your majesty ride on victoriously
for the cause of truth and to defend the right;
let your right hand teach you dread deeds.
Your arrows are sharp
in the heart of the king’s enemies;
the peoples fall under you.
Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever.
Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity;
you love righteousness and hate wickedness.
Therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions;
your robes are all fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia.
From ivory palaces stringed instruments make you glad;
daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor;
at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.

Hear, O daughter, consider and incline your ear;
forget your people and your father’s house,
and the king will desire your beauty.
Since he is your lord, bow to him;
the people of Tyre will seek your favor with gifts,
the richest of the people 13with all kinds of wealth.
The princess is decked in her chamber with gold-woven robes;
in many-colored robes she is led to the king;
behind her the virgins, her companions, follow.
With joy and gladness they are led along
as they enter the palace of the king.

In the place of ancestors you, O king, shall have sons;
you will make them princes in all the earth.
I will cause your name to be celebrated in all generations;
therefore the peoples will praise you forever and ever.

It is clear that the king addressed here is a human being. He is a handsome man (or so the psalmist would have been wont to insist upon). He is taking a bride. They are to have children. As all kings, he is described as a “mighty one,” who walks in “glory and majesty.” As all good Judean kings, he has been anointed by God, and blessed by God. The king is called “God,” and yet he is clearly distinguished from the true God. God here is a title conferred upon him because he is the ideal king. He loves righteousness, has been established by God, is mighty in battle, subdues the nation’s enemies, and is clearly very prosperous, given the description of his garments, his pastimes, his many political marriages and the splendor of the appearance of his queen. That his throne is said to endure forever is not a reference to his immortality but, as indicated in the final verses, a statement about the longevity of his dynasty: he will be remembered through his lineage.

So here we have a clear example of the title “God” conferred upon a king, albeit within a very well-crafted, aesthetically pleasing, maskil psalm. Let’s look at another example, one you’re sure to have heard, and to have been told to read as a messianic prophecy:

For a child has been born for us,
a son given to us;
authority rests upon his shoulders;
and he is named
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
His authority shall grow continually,
and there shall be endless peace
for the throne of David and his kingdom.
He will establish and uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
from this time onwards and for evermore.
The zeal of the Yahweh of hosts will do this.
(Isaiah 9:6-7)

Although this has been enthusiastically appropriated as a messianic prophecy, what we have here is a standard coronation oracle. The providential birth of a king was announced upon his coronation. Scholars generally agree that the child in view here is King Hezekiah.¹ The names ascribed to the king are “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” These are typical coronation names in the ancient world and have ample parallels throughout the ancient near east, especially in Egypt.

The language is somewhat hyperbolic, and it is clearly the description of an ideal king. This oracle is not retrospective, but prospective, which means that it most likely dates to the exact time of Hezekiah’s accession to the throne.² It depicts the ideal king, and projects such an image onto the new king. A modern day parallel would be President Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize at the beginning of his presidency.

But the relevant point for us is simply that here is another example of a human authority figure, in this case a Judean king, having the title “God” conferred upon him. There would have been nothing controversial about this appellation, as Spurgeon noted, precisely because it was a statement about the king’s responsibilities (to keep him in check) and the king’s God-given authority (to keep his subjects in check). The king had to earn the title, by doing God’s will. If the king did God’s will, then his being identified as “God” brought glory to the true God from whose throne the king had reigned.

Gods in Second Temple Judaism

Insofar as I have been successful in showing that “God” could without controversy or any hint of idolatry be conferred upon God’s appointed agents (judges, kings, prophets, etc.) within the Hebrew Bible, you may object to its relevance for the second temple period, especially if you have been persuaded by my earlier series in which I argued that Israel only became truly monotheistic—still less so than we would imagine—in the second temple period. If Israel was polytheistic back then anyway, of course they wouldn’t have a problem throwing the name “god” around this way and that. The real test is whether that is still the case in second temple Judaism. If by then, the earlier multivalent meaning of “god” had been lost on monotheistic Jews, then we would have grounds for regarding the language of divinity when applied to Jesus as sui generis.³ So the question is, is the word “god” used positively of beings other than Yahweh, by good monotheistic Jews, in the second temple period? The answer is emphatically yes.

We’re not going to look at every extant example of this, because that would take forever. (There are gazillions. I’m not exaggerating. John Collins counted them, and they’re in the gazillions.) But we’ll look at a few, mostly from Philo, just because his examples are very illustrative and representative. But first, more briefly, from the folks at Qumran, and then the Samaritans.

In a Qumran scroll called 11QMelchizedek, the figure of Melchizedek is presented as a heavenly, angelic being. He is a sort of messianic angel, executing God’s justice on earth. In a striking parallel to the teaching of Jesus (yet prior to it), the tenth jubilee is identified with the end of days, and the day of atonement is the end of the tenth jubilee. The tenth jubilee is described as “the time for Melchizedek’s year of favor” (cf. Luke 4:16-21). After which the scroll applies the first verse of Psalm 82 to Melchizedek. We have looked at this psalm before, but have not examined the first verse.

Elohim (God) stands in the assembly of El, in the midst of Elohim (gods) he judges.

The interpretation of the passage offered by the scroll says that “Melchizedek will exact the vengeance of El’s judgments.” What the scroll claims is that Melchizedek is to be identified with the Elohim who stands in the assembly of El. John Collins explains:

In the view of the midrash, the Most High God is El. Elohim is a lesser deity, an angel, if you prefer. But the striking thing about this passage is that the term Elohim, which is usually understood to refer to the Most High in the biblical psalm, now refers to a lesser heavenly being. There are, at least, two divine powers in heaven, even if one of them is clearly subordinate to the other.⁴

Another text from the Qumran caves is relevant for our purposes. This time the “god” in question is not an angel, but an exalted human being. Because the text is so interesting, I will quote it in full:

El Elyon gave me a seat among those perfect forever,
a mighty throne in the congregation of the gods.
None of the kings of the east shall sit in it
And their nobles shall not come near it.
No Edomite shall be like me in glory,
and none shall be exalted save me, nor shall come against me.
For I have taken my seat in the congregation in the heavens
And none find fault with me.
I shall be reckoned with gods
and established in the holy congregation.
I do not desire gold, as would a man of flesh;
everything precious to me is in the glory of my God.
The status of a holy temple, not to be violated,
has been attributed to me, and who can compare with me in glory?
What voyager will return
and tell of my equivalent?
Who laughs at griefs as I do?
And who is like me in bearing evil?
Moreover, if I lay down the law in a lecture
my instruction is beyond comparison with any man’s
And who will attack me for my utterances?
And who will contain the flow of my speech?
And who will call me into court and be my equal?
In my legal judgment none will stand against me.
I shall be reckoned with gods,
and my glory, with that of the king’s sons.
Neither refined gold, nor gold of Ophir
can match my wisdom.
(4Q491, fragment 11, col. 1)

Note the use of gods to refer to lesser beings than Yahweh, whom the exalted man describes as “my God.” Because of his wisdom, which is unmatched by any human being, the egomaniacal lawyer has achieved the status of divinity, being counted among the gods. None of this would be controversial within most strands of second temple monotheism (Sadducean religion notwithstanding). The only point of controversy would arise with this dude’s mother, who like Jesus’ mother may have accused him of being demon possessed, out of his mind (Mark 3:21). But note the similarities between this man’s exalted claims for himself, and those of Jesus. One of the most striking to my mind is this:

The status of a holy temple, not to be violated, has been attributed to me, and who can compare with me in glory?

I tell you, one greater than the temple is here. (Matt 12:6)

Many of the attributions of the name “God” are to Moses, as seen for instance in the Memar Marqah, a Samaritan holy book which dates beyond the second temple period but contains traditions that were already substantially developed within the first century CE. In the Memar Marqah, Moses is described as a “second God,” as God’s vice-regent on earth (1:2). Moses is given the name Elohim, without qualification (5:4). It is said that whoever believes in Moses believes in Yahweh (4:7). (Compare John 12:44-45: “Then Jesus cried out, ‘When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me.’”)

The Jewish philosopher and theologian Philo, who was emphatically monotheistic, was yet able to speak of Moses as a divinized human being, achieving divine status, and being worthy of the appellation “God,” while yet not in the same sense as the one true God:

Not but what, when he gave him the use of all earthly things and suffered him to dwell among them, he assigned to him not such a power as he might exercise in common with an earthly governor or monarch, by which he should forcibly rule over the passions of the soul, but he appointed him to be a sort of god, making the whole of the body, and the mind, which is the ruler of the body, subjects and slaves to him; “For I give thee,” says he, “as a god to Pharaoh” [Exod 7:1]. But God is not susceptible of any subtraction or addition, inasmuch as he is complete and entirely equal to himself. In reference to which it is said of Moses, “That no one is said to know of his tomb” [Deut 34:6]; for who could be competent to perceive the migration of a perfect soul to the living God? Nor do I even believe that the soul itself while awaiting this event was conscious of its own improvement, inasmuch as it was at that time becoming gradually divine. (Philo, On the Sacrifices of Abel and Cain, 9)

Here we see a reaffirmation of the appropriateness of the appellation “god” as ascribed to Moses in his relationship to the Egyptian Pharaoh. But Philo (along with other Jews of this period) is able to expand upon that tradition and describe a process by which Moses, the perfect man of God, became divinized. This was not of course a claim about Moses’ becoming a member of any sort of “Godhead.” There were various strata of divinity in the ancient cosmology, even (if not especially) within Jewish monotheism. The distinction between the one true God, and those gods that are his agents, even the distinction between God and his preeminent agent, remains clear. That said, I feel like I need to point out that in the ancient world they didn’t use capital and lowercase letters to distinguish between different ranks of divinity. That’s something we do, and it can be helpful, but it is artificial and it can also obscure the fluidity of ancient near eastern thinking on these matters, whereas our categories are fairly rigid. Anyway, to say that Moses was divinized is to say something about his immortality, and something about his authority. Calling Moses God is recognizing that he has been given sovereignty.

(Exod 24:2) Why does He say, “Moses alone shall come near to God, and they shall not come near, and the people shall not go up with them”? O most excellent and God-worthy ordinance, that the prophetic mind alone should approach God and that those in second place should go up, making a path to heaven, while those in third place and the turbulent characters of the people should neither go up above nor go up with them but those worthy of beholding should be beholders of the blessed path above. But that “Moses alone shall go up” is said most naturally, for when the prophetic mind becomes divinely inspired and filled with God, it becomes like the monad, not being at all mixed with any of those things associated with duality. But he who is resolved into the nature of unity, is said to come near God in a kind of family relation, for having given up and left behind all mortal kinds, he is changed into the divine, so that such men become kin to God and truly divine. (Philo, Questions and Answers on Exodus, 2:29)

Again, Philo describes Moses’ process of divinization, this time in terms of Moses’ adoption into the family of divine beings.

What more shall I say? Has he not also enjoyed an even greater communion with the Father and Creator of the universe, being thought unworthy of being called by the same appellation? For he also was called the god and king of the whole nation, and he is said to have entered into the darkness where God was; that is to say, into the invisible, and shapeless, and incorporeal world, the essence, which is the model of all existing things, where he beheld things invisible to mortal nature; for, having brought himself and his own life into the middle, as an excellently wrought picture, he established himself as a most beautiful and God-like work, to be a model for all those who were inclined to imitate him. (Philo, On the Life of Moses, 1:158)

Here is one of the more significant statements. Moses is not just considered a “god to Pharaoh,” but also “god and king of the whole nation.” In other words, Moses was god to Israel. This does not mean that Moses was Yahweh, or that Moses took Yahweh’s place. It means that Moses was the God and King to Israel through whom Yahweh was the God and King to Israel. It is the language of agency, as plain as day. No Jew would have read this and found it blasphemous, nor would they have identified Moses as some sort of incarnation of Yahweh’s unique identity. Yahweh works through agents, and Moses is depicted by Philo as Yahweh’s supreme agent who during his time on earth was “god and king to Israel,” and since then has become properly divinized, taking his place among the family of divine beings.

But for Philo, Moses is not the only one deserving of the title:

If one is to speak the real truth, he [the high priest] is a sort of nature bordering on God, inferior indeed to him, but superior to man; “for when,” the scriptures say, “the high priest goes into the Holy of Holies he will not be a man” [Lev 16:17]. What then will he be if he is not a man? Will he be a God? I would not venture to say that (for the chief prophet, Moses, did receive the inheritance of this name while he was still in Egypt, being called “the god of Pharaoh” [Exod 7:1]) nor again is he man, but he touches both these extremities as if he touched both the feet and the head. (Philo, On Dreams, 2:188-189)

Philo takes this logic of mediation between God and man further. Potentially, any righteous man could earn God’s name, and thus function as a mediator between God and men:

The lawgiver of the Jews [i.e., Moses] . . . teaches that the man who is wholly possessed with the love of God and who serves the living God alone, is no longer man, but actually God, being indeed the God of men, but not of the parts of nature, in order to leave to the Father of the universe the attributes of being both and God. (Philo, Every Good Man is Free, 43)

Here Philo says that any man who is able to become utterly righteous becomes God. But he makes a distinction: such a man is not the God of nature, but of human beings. In other words, to be righteous is to be God to men, as Philo said elsewhere, “to be a model for all those who were inclined to imitate him.” What we have here is the picture of a representative man who through his service to God earns the very name of the God he serves. For Philo, this could in theory apply to anyone.

Thus, here is another way in which “God” could be applied to human beings, one that yet comports uncontroversially with Jewish monotheism.

Before returning to our relevant New Testament texts, I think it would be useful to quote from an Ebionite text which pertains directly to the categories we are developing. The Ebionites were Jewish Christians, who did not believe that Jesus was fully God, as the proto-Trinitarians did, and yet they spoke of Jesus with exalted language, often not dissimilar from that found in the New Testament. This particular passage is from a text by Pseudo-Clement, and dates to around the mid-third century CE (ca. 250). Admittedly, this is not the second temple period, but what it illustrates for us is that even as late as the third century, Jewish Christians still recognized the distinctions between the various senses of the title “God” which we have found to be present both in the Hebrew Bible and in various Jewish and Samaritan writings from the second temple period:

Therefore the name God is applied in three ways: either because he to whom it is given is truly God; or because he is the servant of him who is truly; and for the honor of the sender, that his authority may be full, he that is sent is called by the name of him who sends. (Pseudo-Clement, Recognitions, 2:42)

Jesus as God in the New Testament, Revisited

Now let’s take what we have learned and look again at the relevant texts from the New Testament. In each case, we will adopt the translation that ascribes the title “God” to Jesus, even when other translations are possible, perhaps even more probable:

While we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. (Titus 2:13)

To those who have received a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. (2 Pet 1:1)

They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 9:4-5)

Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ (John 20:28)

It has become clear that none of these texts say anything different than what we’ve already seen elsewhere in ancient Judaism, second temple Judaism, and third century Christian Judaism. That being the case, let’s just discuss one of these texts.

Given what we now know about the way the term “God” is used for human beings throughout the Hebrew Bible and the Jewish literature of the second temple period, what could we reasonably surmise Thomas means by his exclamation? We cannot say that Thomas believes the resurrection to be evidence of Jesus’ “full divinity,” because resurrection is what Thomas expected for all faithful Jews. So when Thomas exclaims, “My Lord and my God” (remembering that “Lord” is just a word that means “master,” and his disciples have been calling him “lord” throughout his entire ministry), we would be well within the semantic universe of second temple monotheistic Judaism to understand Thomas to mean any or all of, “my lord and my sovereign,” “my lord and my judge,” “my lord and my king,” “my lord and my Moses.” It could even be understood as Hebrew parallelism, as in, “O captain, my captain.” It could mean any or all of these things at once.

What Thomas has recognized is that Jesus is truly the agent of God and, having been proved righteous in that God has now raised him from the dead, Jesus has earned the title of the ideal king, the preeminent agent of God. It could also just mean that, in his glorified state, Thomas is now recognizing him as having been divinized, achieving angelic status, and so being “reckoned among the gods.” Remember that Jesus taught (and Jesus was certainly not alone within apocalyptic Judaism) that resurrected humans become “as the angels in heaven” (Mark 12:25). Since “gods” was a very common way to refer to angels in the second temple period, it is not unlikely that this is what Thomas meant. Seeing Jesus in his resurrected body, Thomas exclaims, “You’re a god!” Of course, that Thomas used the first person possessive pronoun just indicates that Thomas understood himself to be under this angel’s direct authority. This makes sense since Thomas probably was still interpreting Jesus as God’s messianic agent.

Any or all of these possibilities are infinitely more likely than the idea that Thomas sees Jesus and instantaneously interprets Jesus in a way for which there was no precedent anywhere in any of the many second temple Jewish traditions. Any of my proposed understandings of Thomas’ exclamation make more sense of Thomas within his context than the reading that has him inventing ad hoc a binitarian doctrine of God, de novo. The same is true, mutatis mutandis, for the passages from Titus, 2 Peter, and Romans.

1. See the discussion in Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God, 39-42, regarding the correspondence between the description of events in Isaiah 8 and their relationship to the historical events which led up to the accession of Hezekiah. [BACK]
2. It probably originated in the royal court, since that was the ordinary place for a coronation ode such as this to have occurred, and was later incorporated into Isaiah’s oracles, although it may have originated with Isaiah himself. At any rate, its presence within the Isaianic corpus indicates its acceptance by Isaiah and/or his disciples. [BACK]
3. Actually, this argument has already been undercut in my last post, when I showed that in John 10, Jesus showed the temple Jews that there was nothing blasphemous about calling God’s appointed agents “gods.” But for the sake of the argument . . . [BACK]
4. John J. Collins, “Powers in Heaven: God, Gods, and Angels in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Collins and Kugler, eds., Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 19. [BACK]