Did Thomas Really Call Jesus Almighty God? John 20:28, Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Forgotten Controversy of AD 553
A Historical and Biblical Investigation into “My Lord and My God”
By Simon Brown — Real Discoveries
Was Thomas identifying Jesus as Almighty God, or acknowledging his risen Lord and the Father who raised him from the dead?
For centuries, John 20:28 has been one of the most frequently quoted passages used to support the belief that Jesus Christ is Almighty God.
When Thomas encountered the resurrected Jesus, he exclaimed:
“My Lord and my God!” — John 20:28
For many Trinitarian Christians, these words settle the question of Jesus' identity.
But do they?
What if Thomas was acknowledging Jesus as his risen Lord while also recognising the Father, the one true God, whose power had raised Jesus from the dead?
And what if history reveals that Christians and biblical interpreters questioned the traditional understanding of this verse many centuries ago?
This investigation examines a remarkable historical controversy involving Theodore of Mopsuestia, whose interpretation of Thomas's confession was condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople in AD 553.
It also examines Samuel Crell, an eighteenth-century theologian whose interpretation closely resembles the one presented in this study.
Most importantly, we will return to the Scriptures themselves.
Our purpose is not to deny Jesus his rightful honour as the Christ, the Son of God, and our Lord.
It is to discover whether Thomas was identifying Jesus as the one true God or acknowledging the risen Messiah and the Father whose presence and power Jesus had repeatedly revealed.
1. What Actually Happened When Thomas Saw Jesus?
Thomas had not been present when Jesus first appeared to the disciples following his resurrection.
When the others told him that they had seen the Lord, Thomas refused to believe without further evidence.
John 20:25 records his insistence that he must see the marks of the nails and examine Jesus' wounds.
Eight days later, Jesus appeared again.
He invited Thomas to examine his hands and side and instructed him to believe.
Thomas answered:
“My Lord and my God!” — John 20:28
Jesus replied:
“Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen, and have believed.” — John 20:29, WEB
Several observations are important.
First, Thomas was confronted with the extraordinary reality that Jesus, whom he knew had been crucified, was alive again.
Second, Jesus had already anticipated Thomas's demand for physical evidence.
Third, John does not explicitly say Thomas touched Jesus' wounds. Jesus invited him to do so, but Thomas's confession follows without a recorded act of touching.
Fourth, John says Thomas answered Jesus directly.
This last detail is important because it is the principal objection raised against interpretations that distinguish Jesus from the Father in Thomas's declaration.
Nevertheless, the question remains whether Thomas's words should be understood as identifying Jesus himself as Almighty God or as an acknowledgment involving both Jesus and the God who raised him.
2. Thomas Had Already Heard Jesus Explain That the Father Was in Him
One of the most important passages for understanding Thomas's declaration appears earlier in the same Gospel.
In John 14:5, Thomas personally questioned Jesus:
“Lord, we don't know where you are going. How can we know the way?” — John 14:5, WEB
Jesus answered by explaining his relationship with the Father.
A few verses later, Philip asked Jesus to show them the Father.
Jesus responded:
“He who has seen me has seen the Father.” — John 14:9, WEB
Then Jesus explained what he meant:
“Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I tell you, I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does his works.” — John 14:10, WEB
Notice carefully what Jesus taught.
He did not say that he was the Father.
He distinguished himself from the Father while declaring that the Father dwelt in him and performed his works.
Thomas was present during this teaching.
Therefore, when Thomas later encountered the resurrected Jesus, he already possessed the teaching necessary to distinguish Jesus from the Father whose presence and power were revealed through him.
Could Thomas have recognised both his risen Lord and the Father who was working through him?
That is the interpretation examined in this article.
We should acknowledge that John does not explicitly record Thomas remembering John 14:10 at that precise moment. The connection is an inference from the Gospel's wider narrative, but it is a significant one.
3. Jesus Called the Father “My God” After His Resurrection
Another crucial passage appears in John 20:17.
Earlier on the same resurrection day, Jesus spoke to Mary Magdalene.
He instructed her to tell his disciples:
“I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.” — John 20:17, WEB
Consider the significance of these words.
Jesus had already been raised from the dead.
Yet he continued to identify the Father as his God.
He did not say that his resurrection had made him the Father or removed the distinction between himself and God.
Instead, he spoke of:
My Father and your Father.
My God and your God.
This raises an important question.
If the resurrected Jesus himself identified the Father as his God, why should we automatically conclude that Thomas, only a few verses later, was identifying Jesus as that same God?
The traditional Trinitarian answer is that Jesus can call the Father his God while also sharing the divine nature. That is part of Trinitarian Christology.
Our interpretation, however, understands Jesus' words more directly: the Father is the God of Jesus Christ, and Jesus is the Father's appointed Messiah and Son.
John 20:17 must therefore be considered alongside John 20:28 rather than treating Thomas's declaration in isolation.
4. What Does the Greek Actually Say?
The Greek text of John 20:28 reads:
Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου
Transliterated:
Ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou.
Literally:
“My Lord and my God.”
The Greek word καὶ (kai) means “and.”
The two expressions are:
ὁ κύριός μου — my Lord.
ὁ θεός μου — my God.
Our interpretation understands these as references to two distinct persons:
My Lord: Jesus Christ, the risen Messiah.
My God: the Father, the one true God who raised Jesus.
This distinction is consistent with the familiar New Testament expression:
“Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.” — 1 Corinthians 8:6, WEB
Here Paul expressly identifies one God as the Father and one Lord as Jesus Christ.
Could Thomas have been acknowledging the same distinction?
It is certainly a possibility worth examining.
However, the conjunction kai does not grammatically require two different persons.
Greek can use “and” to join two titles referring to the same individual.
Likewise, the repetition of the article and possessive pronoun does not independently prove two addressees.
The strongest argument for our interpretation must therefore come from the wider biblical context, not from claiming that the word “and” settles the matter.
There is also a grammatical difficulty that must be addressed fairly.
John states that Thomas spoke “to him” — eipen autō — referring to Jesus.
This naturally supports the traditional interpretation that both titles were addressed to Jesus.
Our proposal is that Thomas's words may have been spoken to Jesus while acknowledging the Father whose power and presence Jesus had revealed.
Whether that best explains John's wording is the central exegetical question.
PART TWO — THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE
5. Theodore of Mopsuestia: An Early Christian Interpreter Who Questioned the Traditional Reading
Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. AD 350–428) was a prominent Christian bishop and biblical interpreter associated with the Antiochene theological tradition.
He served as bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia and wrote extensive biblical commentaries.
Theodore lived more than a century before the Second Council of Constantinople condemned him.
His interpretation of John 20:28 is particularly interesting.
Rather than understanding Thomas's words as an identification of Jesus as God, Theodore understood the declaration as an expression of wonder and thanksgiving to God for the resurrection.
Theodore's interpretation is preserved in later accounts and in material attributed to his Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book Seven.
The reasoning attributed to him centres on Thomas's earlier unbelief.
Thomas had doubted that Jesus had risen.
When he encountered the resurrected Christ, he was astonished by the miracle.
According to Theodore's reported interpretation, Thomas was praising God for raising Jesus rather than suddenly identifying the risen Jesus as God.
This is a striking alternative to the traditional explanation.
However, Theodore's interpretation is not identical to the one presented in this article.
Theodore's reported reading understands the confession as praise to God for the resurrection.
Our interpretation more specifically understands “my Lord” as acknowledging Jesus and “my God” as acknowledging the Father.
Theodore's importance lies in showing that a prominent early Christian interpreter questioned whether Thomas's declaration identified Jesus himself as God.
Was Theodore a Biblical Unitarian?
No.
It would be historically inaccurate to describe Theodore as holding the same Christology as modern biblical Unitarians.
His theology involved the relationship between the divine Word and the humanity of Christ and belonged to debates substantially different from those of modern Unitarian Christianity.
We are examining his interpretation of one biblical passage, not claiming that he agreed with every aspect of our understanding of Jesus.
That distinction matters.
6. AD 553: The Council That Condemned Theodore's Interpretation
In AD 553, the Second Council of Constantinople met during the reign of Emperor Justinian I.
The council addressed a major controversy known as the Three Chapters dispute.
Among the matters under examination were Theodore's writings and Christological teachings.
Although Theodore had died in AD 428, the council condemned him posthumously.
This occurred approximately 125 years after his death.
The council's twelfth anathema is especially important for our investigation.
It specifically refers to Theodore's interpretation of Thomas's declaration.
The council accused Theodore of teaching that Thomas's words were not spoken about Christ but were an expression of thanksgiving to God for raising Christ from the dead.
The relevant passage states that Thomas was:
“extolling God for raising up Christ”
The council considered this interpretation unacceptable and included it among the teachings it condemned.
Historical source: Second Council of Constantinople, AD 553 — Anathema 12
Why Is This Historically Significant?
Because it establishes that the interpretation of John 20:28 was explicitly discussed in a major sixth-century church controversy.
The council did not merely debate whether Jesus had risen from the dead.
It addressed how Thomas's words should be understood.
And it condemned the explanation attributed to Theodore that understood Thomas as praising God for the resurrection rather than identifying Jesus as God.
This does not prove Theodore's interpretation was correct.
Neither does it establish that the council condemned Theodore solely because of John 20:28.
His wider Christology was the central concern.
But it does show that the meaning of Thomas's declaration was part of an important historical theological dispute.
Did the Council Establish What Thomas Originally Meant?
A church council can define the doctrine accepted by its church.
But the historical question of what Thomas originally intended must still be examined through Scripture, language and context.
For this reason, our investigation returns to the Gospel of John itself.
We should also distinguish the council's hostile description of Theodore from Theodore's own surviving writings.
The council provides direct evidence of the interpretation it condemned; Theodore's original commentary requires careful textual comparison.
7. What Happened to Theodore's Writings?
Theodore's writings became controversial in the centuries following his death.
Some of his works were lost, while others survived through manuscript transmission, particularly in Syriac Christian traditions.
His Commentary on the Gospel of John is especially important because a Syriac version preserves substantial material from the work.
A modern English translation was published in 2010:
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Gospel of John, translated by Marco Conti, edited by Joel C. Elowsky, IVP Academic.
This gives researchers a way to investigate Theodore's biblical interpretations beyond the hostile descriptions preserved by later opponents.
However, we should not claim that every copy of his works was destroyed by imperial order or that his interpretation was completely erased from history.
The surviving textual evidence itself demonstrates that his writings were not entirely lost.
For our study, the central historical fact remains clear: the interpretation attributed to Theodore was important enough to be explicitly condemned in AD 553.
8. Samuel Crell (1660–1747): A Much Closer Parallel to Our Interpretation
Centuries after Theodore, another theologian proposed an interpretation much closer to the one examined in this article.
His name was Samuel Crell.
Crell was associated with the Socinian and Unitarian theological traditions.
In 1726, he published a Latin work under the pseudonym L. M. Artemonius.
The work was titled:
Initium Evangelii S. Joannis Apostoli ex Antiquitate Ecclesiastica Restitutum.
Its title concerns the interpretation of the opening of John's Gospel and early Christian sources.
Crell's interpretation of John 20:28 was later discussed by the respected German New Testament scholar Johann Albrecht Bengel.
Bengel reported that Crell understood Thomas to be calling Jesus Lord and the Father dwelling inseparably in Jesus God.
This is remarkably close to our interpretation.
The distinction is clear:
Jesus Christ — “My Lord.”
God the Father — “My God.”
This understanding connects directly with Jesus' earlier statement in John 14:10 that the Father dwelt in him and performed his works.
Crell's interpretation therefore offers a documented historical parallel to the belief that Thomas was acknowledging two distinct persons rather than identifying Jesus as Almighty God.
Did Bengel Agree with Samuel Crell?
No.
This is an important historical detail.
Bengel recorded Crell's interpretation but rejected it.
He argued that John explicitly states Thomas spoke to Jesus, making it more natural to understand both titles as referring to Christ.
Nevertheless, Bengel's commentary preserves valuable evidence that the two-person interpretation was being discussed in serious theological literature.
The historical significance of Crell's interpretation does not depend on Bengel agreeing with it.
It demonstrates that the explanation presented in this Real Discoveries study has a clear historical precedent.
Historical references:
Johann Albrecht Bengel — Commentary on John 20:28
Samuel Crell's 1726 publication — Wellcome Collection
9. Later Biblical Commentators Acknowledged the Alternative Interpretation
The historical discussion did not end with Crell.
Later commentators continued to mention interpretations that understood Thomas's declaration as praise to God rather than as an identification of Jesus as God.
Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer (1800–1873)
Meyer, an influential German New Testament commentator, discussed Theodore's interpretation of John 20:28.
He recognised that Theodore understood the declaration as an exclamation of astonishment directed towards God.
Meyer also mentioned later Socinian interpreters who adopted comparable explanations.
However, Meyer rejected that interpretation.
He regarded John's statement that Thomas spoke to Jesus as a decisive objection.
His commentary therefore provides further evidence that the alternative reading was known and debated, although Meyer himself supported the traditional interpretation.
Adam Clarke (1762–1832)
The Methodist biblical commentator Adam Clarke also discussed Theodore's interpretation.
Clarke recognised that Theodore had understood Thomas's declaration differently and that the council had condemned him.
Clarke disagreed with Theodore's interpretation, but he also criticised the spirit of the condemnation.
This is noteworthy.
Even a commentator who strongly believed Thomas was identifying Jesus as God could recognise that condemning someone over an interpretation was problematic.
Margaret Davies and Modern Academic Discussion
The interpretation of John 20:28 has continued to attract scholarly discussion.
Margaret Davies's Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel (1992) is one modern academic work relevant to questions about the identity of God and Jesus in John's Gospel.
Her precise position on the two-person reading should be established from the original text before presenting her as an explicit supporter.
We should distinguish between scholars who actually endorsed an alternative interpretation and those who merely discussed or rejected it.
The evidence already establishes that the traditional reading was not the only interpretation discussed in the history of biblical commentary.
PART THREE — WHAT DID JESUS AND THE APOSTLES ACTUALLY TEACH?
10. Jesus Identified the Father as the Only True God
In John 17:3, Jesus prayed to his Father:
“This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” — John 17:3, WEB
Notice the distinction.
Jesus addresses the Father as the only true God.
He then identifies himself as the one whom that God sent.
Our interpretation understands these words as establishing two distinct identities:
The only true God — the Father.
The one sent by God — Jesus Christ.
Trinitarian theology explains this distinction in terms of persons within the Godhead.
But the passage itself identifies the Father as the one Jesus addresses as the only true God.
Thomas was one of Jesus' disciples and belonged to the circle in which Jesus repeatedly taught the distinction between himself and his Father.
Therefore, John 17:3 provides essential context for understanding John 20:28.
11. The Father Was With Jesus — Jesus Was Not Alone
Jesus repeatedly explained that the Father was with him.
In John 8:29, Jesus declared:
“He who sent me is with me. The Father hasn't left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him.” — John 8:29, WEB
Later, Jesus said:
“Yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.” — John 16:32, WEB
These statements reinforce the teaching of John 14:10.
Jesus was not acting independently of the Father.
The Father had sent him.
The Father was with him.
The Father worked through him.
Could Thomas's declaration following the resurrection have reflected his recognition of both the risen Messiah and the God who had empowered him?
That is the central proposal of this study.
12. Who Actually Raised Jesus from the Dead?
The New Testament repeatedly identifies God as the one who raised Jesus.
Consider Acts 2:24:
“Whom God raised up, having freed him from the agony of death.” — Acts 2:24, WEB
Peter later declared:
“This Jesus God raised up, to which we all are witnesses.” — Acts 2:32, WEB
Paul similarly wrote:
“Paul, an apostle (not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead).” — Galatians 1:1, WEB
These passages distinguish Jesus, the one raised, from God the Father, who raised him.
This is directly relevant to Theodore's interpretation.
Theodore understood Thomas as praising God for the extraordinary miracle of raising Jesus.
Our interpretation goes further by understanding Thomas's declaration as acknowledging both his risen Lord and the Father who raised him.
The resurrection therefore provides a meaningful context for the two-person interpretation.
13. Peter Explained Who God Made Jesus to Be
On the day of Pentecost, Peter proclaimed:
“Men of Israel, hear these words! Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God to you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the middle of you.” — Acts 2:22, WEB
Notice Peter's distinction.
Jesus was approved by God.
God performed mighty works through him.
Later in the same sermon, Peter declared:
“Let all the house of Israel therefore know certainly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” — Acts 2:36, WEB
Here we find an especially important statement.
God made Jesus both Lord and Christ.
The Father is the one who appointed and exalted Jesus.
Jesus is the Lord and Messiah whom God appointed.
This agrees with the distinction Paul makes in 1 Corinthians 8:6:
One God, the Father.
One Lord, Jesus Christ.
And it provides further biblical support for understanding Thomas's declaration in terms of Jesus' lordship and the Father's identity as God.
14. Jesus Still Calls the Father His God in Revelation
The distinction between Jesus and his God does not disappear after the resurrection or ascension.
In Revelation 3:12, the exalted Jesus repeatedly speaks of:
“My God.”
He refers to the temple of his God, the name of his God and the city of his God.
This is significant because the words are attributed to the exalted Christ.
The risen and glorified Jesus continues to identify someone as his God.
For our interpretation, this is consistent with the understanding that the Father remains the God of Jesus Christ.
The question therefore becomes even more important:
If Jesus himself repeatedly calls the Father his God, should we interpret Thomas's confession in a way that ignores this consistent distinction?
PART FOUR — ANSWERING THE STRONGEST OBJECTIONS
15. But Doesn't John Say Thomas Spoke Directly to Jesus?
Yes.
This is the strongest textual objection to our interpretation, and it should not be ignored.
John 20:28 states that Thomas answered and spoke to Jesus.
The traditional interpretation understands both “my Lord” and “my God” as titles addressed to Jesus.
This is the most straightforward reading of the immediate sentence.
Bengel, Meyer and other commentators have used this detail to reject alternative explanations.
Our interpretation proposes that Thomas, while responding directly to Jesus, acknowledged both his risen Lord and the Father whose presence and power Jesus had revealed.
Such an interpretation is possible as a theological reading of the wider context, but it requires an additional inference.
We should not pretend that the Greek grammar independently proves it.
The question is whether the wider testimony of John provides sufficient reason to understand Thomas's confession in this way.
16. Why Would Thomas Praise God but Not Acknowledge Jesus?
This is an important question when examining Theodore's reported interpretation.
Thomas had personally known Jesus.
He had followed him.
He had doubted his resurrection.
Now Jesus stood alive before him.
Why would Thomas's response make no explicit acknowledgment of Jesus?
Theodore's explanation, as reported, emphasised praise to God for the miracle.
But the interpretation presented in this article gives Jesus a direct and essential place in Thomas's declaration.
Thomas acknowledges:
Jesus — his risen Lord.
The Father — his God.
This understanding honours Jesus' resurrection and his God-given authority while preserving the distinction Jesus himself taught.
It also resembles the interpretation attributed to Samuel Crell.
17. Why Didn't Jesus Correct Thomas?
Supporters of the traditional interpretation frequently ask:
If Thomas mistakenly called Jesus God, why did Jesus not correct him?
This is a reasonable objection.
But our interpretation does not require Thomas to have made a mistake.
If Thomas was acknowledging Jesus as his Lord and the Father as his God, there was no error for Jesus to correct.
Jesus' response in John 20:29 concerns Thomas's belief after seeing him alive.
The immediate issue throughout the episode is Thomas's refusal to believe the resurrection without personal evidence.
Jesus' reply confirms that Thomas has believed.
It does not explicitly explain whether Thomas's two titles were intended for one person or two.
Therefore, Jesus' response is relevant evidence but does not independently resolve every question about the confession's meaning.
18. Does John 20:28 Prove the Trinity?
Even if one accepts the traditional interpretation that Thomas called Jesus God, an additional theological argument would still be necessary to establish the full doctrine of the Trinity.
John 20:28 does not explicitly mention three coequal, coeternal persons.
It does not name the Holy Spirit.
Nor does it formulate the later doctrine of one divine essence in three persons.
Trinitarian theologians understand Thomas's confession as part of a larger biblical case for Christ's deity, not as a complete formulation of the Trinity by itself.
Our position is that the passage should be interpreted alongside the repeated statements identifying the Father as the God of Jesus Christ.
One verse should not be isolated from the Gospel's broader teaching.
PART FIVE — JOHN'S OWN CONCLUSION
19. Why Did John Write His Gospel?
After recording Thomas's confession, John explained the purpose of his Gospel.
This is perhaps the most important statement in our entire investigation.
John wrote:
“But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” — John 20:31, WEB
Notice what John identifies as the intended belief.
He does not explicitly say:
“These things are written so that you may believe Jesus is Almighty God.”
Instead, he declares that his Gospel was written so readers might believe that Jesus is:
The Christ.
The Son of God.
And through believing, they might have life in his name.
This does not mean that John 20:31 automatically rules out every higher Christological interpretation elsewhere in the Gospel.
But it does mean that John's own stated purpose must carry substantial weight.
For Real Discoveries, this statement provides the clearest explanation of the faith John wished his readers to embrace.
Jesus is the promised Messiah.
He is the Son of the living God.
And eternal life is offered through faith in his name.
20. Three Historical Interpretations — One Important Question
Our investigation has uncovered three distinct ways of understanding Thomas's confession.
Theodore of Mopsuestia — Fourth/Fifth Century
Thomas was astonished by the resurrection and praised God for raising Jesus.
Theodore's reported interpretation did not understand the confession as identifying Jesus himself as God.
Samuel Crell — AD 1726
Thomas acknowledged Jesus as his Lord and the Father dwelling in Jesus as his God.
This is the closest documented historical parallel to our interpretation.
Real Discoveries — Our Biblical Understanding
Thomas recognised Jesus Christ as his risen Lord and acknowledged the Father as his God.
This interpretation draws particularly on John 14:10, John 17:3, John 20:17, John 20:31, Acts 2:36 and 1 Corinthians 8:6.
These three explanations are related, but they should not be presented as identical.
Theodore emphasised thanksgiving to God.
Crell distinguished Jesus as Lord from the Father as God.
Our interpretation combines recognition of Jesus' lordship with recognition of the Father's identity as the one true God.
FINAL CONCLUSION — WAS THOMAS CALLING JESUS ALMIGHTY GOD?
The historical evidence establishes something important.
The traditional interpretation of John 20:28 has not been the only interpretation discussed in Christian history.
Theodore of Mopsuestia understood Thomas's declaration as praise to God for the resurrection, an explanation later condemned at Constantinople in AD 553.
Samuel Crell presented a more specific distinction between Jesus as Lord and the Father dwelling in him as God.
Later biblical commentators preserved, discussed and frequently rejected these alternative explanations.
Their writings demonstrate that the meaning of Thomas's confession has been disputed.
They do not, by themselves, prove that Jesus was not being addressed as God. The immediate wording of John 20:28 remains a significant argument for the traditional interpretation.
Nevertheless, they establish that a reading which does not identify Jesus as Almighty God has genuine historical precedent.
Our conviction rests on the wider testimony of Scripture.
Jesus called the Father the only true God.
Jesus taught that the Father dwelt in him.
Jesus identified the Father as his God after the resurrection.
The apostles proclaimed that God raised Jesus from the dead and made him both Lord and Christ.
And John concluded his Gospel by declaring that eternal life comes through believing Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
Therefore, our understanding is that Thomas was acknowledging his risen Lord, Jesus Christ, and the Father, the one true God who raised him.
This interpretation honours Jesus as the promised Messiah, the Son of God and our Lord, without identifying him as the Father or as the Almighty God whom he himself worshipped.
Whatever interpretation one ultimately accepts, the evidence deserves careful examination rather than assuming that one traditional explanation is the only possible reading.
The question every reader must consider is:
Did Thomas suddenly declare Jesus to be Almighty God, or did he finally recognise his risen Lord and the God whose power had raised him from the dead?
Our answer is the latter.
And we invite every reader to examine the Scriptures and decide whether this interpretation faithfully reflects the teachings of Jesus and his apostles.
“This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” — John 17:3, WEB
“These are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” — John 20:31, WEB
Amen.
Previous Real Discoveries Research
Did Thomas Believe Jesus Was God? | John 20:28 Quick Facts
This earlier Real Discoveries study examines Thomas's declaration, the Greek conjunction kai, Jesus' teaching that the Father dwelt in him, and John's stated purpose in writing his Gospel.
It provides a useful introduction to the biblical questions developed in this expanded historical investigation.
▶ READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE:
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2026/08/did-thomas-believe-jesus-was-god-john.html
Historical Sources and Further Reading
1. Second Council of Constantinople (AD 553), Anathema 12
Primary historical evidence for the council's condemnation of the interpretation attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm
2. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Gospel of John
Translated by Marco Conti, edited by Joel C. Elowsky. IVP Academic, 2010.
Modern scholarly edition relevant to the interpretation attributed to Theodore. The precise passage concerning John 20:27–29 should be checked against this translation before reproducing it as a direct quotation.
https://www.ivpress.com/commentary-on-the-gospel-of-john
3. Samuel Crell (L. M. Artemonius), 1726
Initium Evangelii S. Joannis Apostoli ex Antiquitate Ecclesiastica Restitutum.
Original historical work associated with the interpretation that distinguishes Jesus as Lord from the Father dwelling in him as God.
https://wellcomecollection.org/works/zxzzzv8z
4. Johann Albrecht Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament — John 20:28
Records and rejects the interpretation attributed to Artemonius, identifying Jesus as Lord and the Father dwelling in him as God.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/bengel/john/20.htm
5. Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer — Commentary on John 20:28
Discusses Theodore's interpretation as praise directed towards God and explains objections to that reading.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/20-28.htm
6. Adam Clarke — Commentary on John 20:28
Discusses Theodore's interpretation and the council's condemnation while defending the traditional reading.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/john/20.htm
7. Margaret Davies, Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel (1992)
An academic study of John's Gospel, relevant for further investigation of the distinction between God and Jesus. Her precise interpretation of John 20:28 requires direct verification before treating her as a supporter.
https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/rhetoric-and-reference-in-the-fourth-gospel-9780567154590/
Real Discoveries — Simon Brown
Examining the Scriptures, questioning traditions, and seeking the truth about the one true God and His Son, Jesus Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment