My Lord and My God

John 20:28 is, by common agreement, the single most cited text in arguments for the deity of Christ. When Thomas sees the resurrected Jesus, he responds with the words "My Lord and my God." For most Trinitarian readers, this verse settles the question. Thomas calls Jesus "God," Jesus does not correct him, and therefore Jesus is God.

Biblical Unitarianism has several careful readings of this verse. None of them requires treating Thomas's words as a confession of Jesus as the one true God. This deep dive walks through the grammar, the narrative context, the range of defensible readings, and the engagement with mainstream Trinitarian scholarship.

The Greek text

Ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου.

Apekrithē Thōmas kai eipen autō; Ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou.

Literally: "Thomas answered and said to him, 'The Lord of me and the God of me.'"

Two features of the Greek deserve immediate attention. The address "Lord" uses the definite article (ho kurios) plus the first-person genitive pronoun "of me" (mou). Same pattern for "God" (ho theos mou). Each is a formal address with the article and possessive.

The verb for "said" (eipen) uses the dative pronoun autō ("to him"), indicating that Thomas is speaking to Jesus. This is important because the Greek specifies direct address. Thomas is not simply exclaiming; he is addressing someone.

The range of defensible readings

Biblical Unitarian scholarship has developed several readings of Thomas's words, each with textual and contextual support. No single reading is mandated; the range is what a responsible reader should hold.

Reading 1: Full address to Jesus, in the Shaliach sense

The first reading takes both "my Lord" and "my God" as addressed to Jesus. Thomas, having encountered the risen Savior and heard him address the wounds in his hands and side, responds with worshipful recognition.

On this reading, Thomas is calling Jesus "my Lord and my God" in the sense that the Shaliach framework allows. The authorized representative of God can be addressed with God's titles because the representative carries God's full authority. What is done to the Shaliach is done to the sender. The Mishnah principle, "a man's agent is like himself," licenses this form of address.

This reading draws support from the Hebrew Bible's own use of divine titles for authorized representatives. Moses is called elohim in his representative capacity (Exodus 7:1: "I have made thee a god to Pharaoh"). The Davidic king is addressed with divine titles in Psalm 45:6 ("Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever"), a passage Hebrews 1:8 applies to Jesus. The judges of Israel are called elohim in Psalm 82:6 when they represent God's justice. Moses himself receives the title elohim (Exodus 21:6, 22:8-9, in the Hebrew).

In each of these Hebrew Bible cases, the person being addressed with divine titles is not the one true God. They are the authorized representative of the one true God. The title is a title of representative authority, not of ontological identity. When Thomas addresses Jesus as ho theos mou, he may be applying this same Hebrew pattern: the risen Messiah is the unique authorized representative of the Father, and he may be addressed with God's title because he bears God's authority.

Reading 2: "My Lord" to Jesus, "my God" to the Father

A second reading parses Thomas's address as split. "My Lord" is addressed to Jesus (the kurios whom Jesus has just revealed himself to be by his resurrection). "My God" is addressed to the Father, in worshipful acknowledgment of what the Father has done in raising Jesus.

This reading is grammatically possible. Greek can parse a series of vocatives as addressed to different parties, especially when context distinguishes them. The "and" (kai) between the two phrases does not mandate unified address.

On this reading, Thomas's response is bilateral. He acknowledges Jesus as the Lord (recognizing that the resurrection has vindicated Jesus's messianic claims) and he simultaneously praises the Father (recognizing that the Father is the one who has done this). This parallels Peter's Pentecost sermon in Acts 2:36, where the proclamation is that "God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." The Father is the one who has exalted the Messiah; Thomas's response honors both the Father and the Son in their respective roles.

Reading 3: Exclamation directed to God in response to seeing Jesus

A third reading treats Thomas's words as a pious exclamation directed to God (the Father), occasioned by the sight of the risen Jesus but not addressed to Jesus as the person called "God."

This reading has cultural support. Exclamatory use of divine names and titles is attested in first-century Jewish and Hellenistic Greek usage. A Jewish speaker encountering something astonishing might exclaim "my Lord!" or "my God!" in the manner of our English "O my God!" today. The exclamation would be directed upward, to God, in response to the astonishing event.

Critics of this reading note that the Greek specifies Thomas said these things autō ("to him," referring to Jesus). This does weaken the exclamation reading. However, the Greek dative can mean "in response to him" as well as "directly addressed to him," and the narrative context allows for the reading that Thomas is exclaiming to God in Jesus's presence and in response to seeing Jesus.

This reading is the weakest of the three, because the grammar is strained. But it is grammatically possible and has been defended by some Biblical Unitarian commentators.

Reading 4: Ellipsis with implicit acknowledgment

A fourth reading, developed in some Christadelphian and Biblical Unitarian commentary, treats Thomas's words as carrying an ellipsis. "The Lord of me [is risen] and the God of me [has vindicated him]." The address to Jesus ("my Lord") is immediate, recognizing Jesus as the Lord now standing before him. The address to God ("my God") is acknowledgment, recognizing the Father as the God who has raised the Messiah.

This reading is similar to Reading 2 but more explicitly treats the two phrases as holding distinct referents with an implicit unifying acknowledgment.

Why readings 1 or 2 are most defensible

Biblical Unitarian scholarship has generally settled on Readings 1 and 2 as the strongest. The exclamation reading (Reading 3) has grammatical difficulties. Reading 4 is similar enough to Reading 2 that they can be treated as variants of the same underlying move.

Reading 1 (Shaliach application of divine titles to Jesus as authorized representative) has the advantage of treating the address as unified and taking the Greek autō at face value. It also fits the Hebrew Bible's own pattern of addressing authorized representatives with divine titles.

Reading 2 (bilateral address to both Jesus and Father) has the advantage of explaining the striking use of both kurios and theos in sequence, with the distinction matching the distinction between the Messianic Lord and the one true God that the rest of the New Testament maintains (John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6).

Both readings are theologically robust. Both are grammatically defensible. Neither requires reading Thomas's confession as an identification of Jesus with the one true God in the Nicene Trinitarian sense.

Engaging Murray Harris

Murray Harris's Jesus as God (1992), discussed in the John 1:1 deep dive, treats John 20:28 as one of the clearest cases of theos being applied to Jesus in the New Testament. Harris argues that the verse functions as an "acclamation," a formal declaration of recognition that Jesus is theos. He notes that the context includes Jesus's acceptance of the worship (he does not correct Thomas), that the two nouns are joined by kai (unifying the address), and that the definite articles give the address formal weight.

The Biblical Unitarian response to Harris is multifaceted.

First, "acclamation" in the Hebrew Bible sense is not identification. Moses being declared elohim to Pharaoh is an acclamation. The Davidic king being addressed as elohim in Psalm 45 is an acclamation. These acclamations apply divine titles to authorized representatives without identifying them with the one true God. If John 20:28 is an acclamation in this sense, the acclamation applies divine titles to the Messiah in his Shaliach role. Harris's "acclamation" category does not decide the Christological content.

Second, Jesus's failure to correct Thomas does not require the Nicene reading. Jesus would have no reason to correct Thomas if Thomas is addressing him in the Shaliach sense (Reading 1) or acknowledging him alongside the Father (Reading 2). The silence requires correction only if the address is a Trinitarian identification that Jesus would rightly refuse. Since the address need not be read that way, the absence of correction does not settle the question.

Third, the kai conjunction does not mandate unified address. Greek uses kai to join both unified and bifurcated parallels. "The Father and the Son" can be addressed together (unified) or distinguished (bifurcated). The kai in Thomas's words is compatible with either reading.

Harris's argument is serious but not decisive. It rules out some low Christologies (the NWT "you are a god" reading). It does not rule out the Shaliach reading or the bilateral reading.

The narrative context matters

John 20:28 occurs at the climactic end of John's Gospel, just before John states his purpose in 20:31. The narrative flow is significant.

Thomas has missed the first resurrection appearance. The other disciples have seen the risen Jesus and told Thomas about it. Thomas has refused to believe without physical confirmation: "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe" (John 20:25). Eight days later, Jesus appears again, with Thomas present, and invites Thomas to do exactly what Thomas said he would require. "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing" (20:27).

Thomas responds with Ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou. Then Jesus says, "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" (20:29).

The point of the narrative is belief. Thomas's demand was for physical evidence. Jesus provided it. Thomas now believes. Jesus's closing beatitude points to those who will believe without physical evidence.

The Christology of the confession is woven into this narrative, but the narrative's own emphasis is not on a metaphysical identification. The narrative's emphasis is on the conclusion of a Gospel designed to produce belief. What does Thomas believe? The immediately following verses give the answer: "these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" (20:31). Thomas's confession is the climactic instance of the kind of belief the Gospel was written to produce: belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. The titles "Lord" and "God" in 20:28 are functioning in the service of this kind of belief, not in the service of a Nicene ontological claim.

A Latter-day Saint consideration

For a Latter-day Saint reader, John 20:28 has sometimes been read as support for the Restoration's doctrine that there are multiple divine Beings, with the Savior being one of them. Thomas calls Jesus "my God," so Jesus is a God, distinct from Heavenly Father, a member of the Godhead.

The Biblical Unitarian reading of John 20:28 does not support this conclusion either. None of the defensible Biblical Unitarian readings (Shaliach, bilateral, exclamation, ellipsis) positions Jesus as a distinct second God alongside the Father. The Shaliach reading has Jesus as the authorized representative of the one true God. The bilateral reading has Jesus as the Lord and the Father as the God. Neither supports a plurality of Gods.

If Thomas is treating Jesus as a distinct God alongside the Father (the Restoration reading), the Shema is broken. Thomas, a first-century Jew, is not going to break the Shema lightly. The Shema held. Thomas's confession is compatible with the Shema only if Jesus is being addressed in the Shaliach sense or if the address is bilateral. A reading that makes Thomas a polytheist in that moment violates the framework within which Thomas himself was formed.

What John 20:28 does not settle

A careful reading of John 20:28 leaves several questions open. It does not settle whether Jesus is a distinct divine Person in the Nicene Trinitarian sense. It does not settle whether Jesus is a distinct God in the Restoration sense. It does settle that Jesus is the Lord whom Thomas has recognized and that the Father is the God whom Thomas also acknowledges.

What John 20:28 does settle, read in the context of John 20:31, is the climactic recognition that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the one through whom eternal life is available. This is the Johannine Christology that the whole Gospel has been building toward, and it is the Biblical Unitarian confession. Thomas's words, whichever defensible reading one adopts, serve this Christology, not a different one.

Coda: Thomas and the rest of the Gospel

One test of any reading of John 20:28 is whether it fits the rest of the Fourth Gospel. Thomas's confession, if it is an identification of Jesus with the one true God, sits strangely next to John 17:3 where the Father is "the only true God" and Jesus is "whom you have sent." It sits strangely next to John 14:28 where Jesus says "the Father is greater than I." It sits strangely next to John 8:42 where Jesus says he has not come of himself but was sent by the Father. It sits strangely next to the entire sending-language pattern of the Fourth Gospel, where the Son is subordinated to the Father throughout.

A responsible reading of John 20:28 has to fit the rest of John's Gospel. Biblical Unitarian readings of the verse fit. They read Thomas's confession as the climactic recognition of Jesus as the Lord whom the Father has raised, confessing him as the authorized Shaliach of the one true God, with or without a simultaneous acknowledgment of the Father. Trinitarian readings of the verse have to work harder to fit the rest of John, which is why Trinitarian commentators on John spend considerable time on the subordination passages elsewhere.

The Christology of the Fourth Gospel is coherent from beginning to end when read through the Biblical Unitarian framework. John 1:1 opens with the Word that God's Word was (qualitative). John 1:14 has the Word taking flesh in the Messiah. John 1:18 has the only begotten one (Son or God-qualitative) making the Father known. John 17:3 has the Father as the only true God, with Jesus as the one sent. John 20:28 has Thomas recognizing Jesus as Lord and acknowledging the Father as God. John 20:31 has the purpose of the whole Gospel: belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

This is a coherent Christology. It is John's own. And it does not require Nicene categories to make sense.