Thomas confessed the risen Jesus as 'my Lord and my God,' and Jesus commended rather than corrected him

In the Gospel of John, the encounter between the risen Jesus and Thomas serves as a pivotal moment in the narrative, particularly in the discussion of Jesus' deity. Proponents of the traditional Christian understanding of this passage argue that Thomas's confession of Jesus as "my Lord and my God" in John 20:28 is a clear affirmation of the deity of Christ. This argument is bolstered by the fact that Jesus does not correct Thomas but rather commends those who believe without seeing. Let's examine the strength of this argument and consider what it establishes within the text.

Thomas's Confession and Jesus' Response

The scene is set in John 20:24-29, where Thomas, also known as Didymus, expresses skepticism about Jesus' resurrection. He declares that unless he sees and touches the wounds of Jesus, he will not believe. When Jesus later appears to the disciples, Thomas is present, and Jesus invites him to touch his wounds. Thomas responds with the declaration, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28).

Advocates of this passage as evidence for Jesus' deity, including New Testament scholars such as D.A. Carson, Richard Bauckham, and N.T. Wright, argue that Thomas's use of "my Lord and my God" is significant. The Greek wording in John 20:28 is especially important: Thomas "answered and said to him" (Greek: eipen auto) before saying, "My Lord and my God." That makes the confession directed to Jesus, not merely a detached exclamation addressed to God in heaven. In a Jewish monotheistic context, calling Jesus "my God" is therefore a weighty claim; if Jesus were merely a human agent, this wording would be very difficult to explain.

Furthermore, Jesus' response is telling. Instead of rebuking Thomas for blasphemy, Jesus says, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20:29). The immediate issue is belief in the risen Jesus on the basis of apostolic testimony rather than physical inspection. Yet in context Thomas's belief is expressed precisely in the words "my Lord and my God," so Jesus' response is naturally read as accepting, not correcting, the confession.

The Strength of the Argument

The argument for Jesus' deity from this passage is robust in several ways. Firstly, the language used by Thomas is direct and unusually strong. The phrase is ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου (ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou), literally, "the Lord of me and the God of me." Kyrios can be used for human masters or respected figures, so the word "Lord" alone would not prove deity. The decisive element is the full paired confession, especially ho theos mou ("my God"), addressed to the risen Jesus in a Gospel whose prologue has already said that the Word "was God" (John 1:1). In the Greek biblical tradition familiar to early Christians, kyrios is regularly used for the divine name and theos for Israel's God, so the language naturally fits John's larger presentation of Jesus within the sphere of divine identity.

Secondly, Jesus' lack of correction is significant, but the point should be stated carefully. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus corrects serious misunderstandings about his identity and mission. Here, Jesus does more than remain silent: he treats Thomas's response as "belief." This does not mean every detail of later Trinitarian theology is present in the sentence, but it does mean the narrative does not distance itself from Thomas's words. Within John's story, the confession functions as an appropriate response to the risen Jesus.

What the Passage Does and Does Not Establish

This passage strongly supports the view that the author of John's Gospel presents Jesus as divine. Thomas's confession and Jesus' response are consistent with the broader Johannine theme of Jesus' divine identity, as seen in passages like John 1:1, where Jesus is described as the Word who "was God."

However, it is important to note what this passage does not establish. It does not, by itself, provide a systematic theology of the Trinity. While it affirms Jesus' divine status within John's narrative, it does not explain how Jesus relates to the Father and the Holy Spirit, nor does it resolve later questions about person, essence, generation, or procession. It also does not erase other New Testament texts that emphasize Jesus' humanity, his prayers to the Father, or his obedient mission. Those texts must be held in view when assessing how John 20:28 fits within the wider New Testament witness.

Additionally, mainstream scholarship widely recognizes that John's Gospel presents an especially explicit high Christology when compared with the Synoptic Gospels. Scholars such as James D.G. Dunn have argued that this reflects development in early Christian reflection on Jesus, while others argue that John makes explicit convictions already present in earlier Christian worship and proclamation. Either way, John 20:28 should be read first as evidence for John's own Christology, not as a complete historical account of how every New Testament writer expressed Jesus' identity.

Conclusion

John 20:28-29 is a compelling text for those who affirm the deity of Jesus. Thomas's confession and Jesus' response provide strong internal evidence within the Gospel of John for the understanding that Jesus is divine. However, while this passage underscores the divine identity of Jesus, it must be considered alongside the broader scriptural witness to fully appreciate the complex and nuanced portrayal of Jesus' nature in the New Testament. The text strongly affirms that, in John's presentation, the risen Jesus can be addressed as "my Lord and my God"; it then invites further reflection on how this claim relates to other New Testament teachings about Jesus' humanity, his distinction from the Father, and the identity of the one God.