For those denying that the Trinity has a Biblical foundation, two very logical and proper understandings of this text have been provided.  The first view that we will discussed argues that Thomas, though speaking to Jesus, was not identifying him as his God.  In considering this view we will look at the grammar behind the argument and consider how such a view would fit the context.  The second position that we will review finds that Thomas does confess Jesus to be his Lord and God.  Understanding this text then becomes a matter of considering the full semantic range of the term translated “god”. 

Not a Direct Identification
As already noted, a view held by many is that Thomas was not actually identifying Jesus as his Lord and God.  Unfortunately, some have made a number of critical errors in their interpretation of this text, arguing that Thomas was saying something akin to “Oh my God.”  This is ungrounded and unlikely for a 1^st century Jew.  Such a position seems to come from nothing less than desperation.  Such ones are correct in that Jesus is not the Almighty, but rather than making an educated study of Scripture, they attempt to provide an answer that lacks a real foundation.   

A view that is historically proper finds Thomas to be making an exclamation of faith. This would be understood as him confessing that his God had done the things promised by him through the prophets.  It would be a confession of his very existence.   

The basis for this view of the text is not simply a theological interpretation, but it also looks to the grammar of the verse.  The Greek language provides different noun cases to identify the word’s role in the sentence.  One case will identify the sentence’s subject, another will show the object.  Another will show what is possessed, while another can show that somebody is being addressed directly.  This of course is a very basic summary of the cases, but for this discussion it should prove sufficient. 

When a person is being addressed directly in Greek the vocative case is used.  When a person is addressed as Lord, we see the word κυριε rather than the nominative (subject case) κυριος.  Within the New Testament there are 120 texts where somebody is expressly addressed as Lord, not including the text under discussion.  Of these, 119 make use of the vocative κυριε, while one uses the nominative case, though having some textual uncertainties.[2]  We find the nominative in John 20:28. 

What makes this issue difficult is that we can use the nominative case as a vocative, as in the case of the one example of the 120 mentioned.  So indeed it is possible that John 20:28 is an address to Jesus Christ, but on the other hand it is also possible that Thomas was simply answering Jesus’ commission to start believing, thus making a confession of his belief. 

If we consider the verses’ context we will note that the issue presented is not Jesus’ identity but Thomas’ belief.  In verse 27 we find that Jesus commissions Thomas: “Be not unbelieving, but believing.”  Thomas is thus “answering” Jesus and so the text is expressly addressed to him.  This does not mean that the text was about him though.  Thomas could have said, “You are my Lord and my God,” by simply making use of the Greek verb ει.  Thomas did not do this. 

Further, we might consider Thomas’ address to Christ in John 14:5.  In that text he spoke of him as Lord and made use of the vocative κυριε, not the nominative found in John 20:28.  If Thomas were not identifying Jesus we would find that he is making use of what is known as a nominative of exclamation. 

Daniel Wallace, though denying that John 20:28 makes use of this construction, lists the following criteria for determining whether or not a text makes use of such a nominative.  He explains: “The keys to identifying a nominative of exclamation are: (1) the lack of a verb (though one may be implied), (2) the obvious emotion of the author, and (3) the necessity of an exclamation point in translation.”[3]  John 20:28 does fill each of these criteria.  It does not have a verb, there is obvious emotion and an exclamation point is used in a significant number of translations. 

Wallace[4] and others such as Robertson[5] deny that John 20:28 is such a nominative based upon the use of address.  The text tells us that Thomas said it “to him,” and so they see this as removing the text from the exclamatory categorization.  Though often accused of theological bias, Winer saw no issue in this serving as a direct address.  He states: "On the other hand, [John 20:]  28, though directed at Jesus (eipen autwi), is rather an exclamation than an address; and, in the Greek authors, such a Nom[inative] has early and strong prominence."[6]  Unfortunately Winer did not cite any examples in support of his statement, but such a nominative can indeed be found elsewhere.  Consider the following parallel. 

John 20:28 ό κυριος μου και ό θεος μου

Mark 3:34 ιδε ή μητηρ μου και οι αδεφοι μου

While Mark 3:34 does not contain a direct personal address as in John 20:28, the parallel between the nominatives is clearly seen.  It was on this ground that Winer based his conclusion.  Therefore it is the conclusion of this position that Jesus was addressed only in that Thomas was “answering” Jesus, making a response to the commission laid out for him.  He was not identifying him. 

Jesus Christ Identified
While we have presented a legitimate foundation for understanding the text in a way that would not find Thomas identifying Jesus as his Lord and God, for this discussion we feel it best to confess that he did.  At this time nothing known of Greek grammar can conclusively prove what the intended meaning was, and so it is truly impossible to conclusively prove that Thomas did not intend to identify Jesus.  For those that are Christians and speak to others on this text, accepting this text as an identification generally proves easier for those being spoken with to understand, while nothing inappropriate is derived from such an understanding. 

To take this text as identifying Jesus comes naturally.  Scripture establishes that Jesus is to be identified as Lord. (Act. 2:36) We also note that the Greek noun translated “god” is applied to Christ. (Joh. 1:1, 18)  But if Jesus is identified by that noun in John 20:28 does this imply that he is the Almighty? 

Jesus had just been raised from the dead.  In this, he proved himself to be exactly who he had claimed, the Messiah.  He had been their teacher and he had promised to grant them life. (Joh. 10:28)  Yet in his doing these things he always maintained that what he provided did not originate with him, but that it came from God. (Joh. 5:24-30)  In line with this, we can consider how the early church viewed others as gods without equating them with the true God.  Looking to The Letter to Diognetus we find a clear statement that explains how one could properly be identified as an individual's god without being equated with the Almighty.  Likely written in the early to mid second century, the author claimed to have “been a disciple of the apostles.”[7]  In his letter he states: “He who, whatever things he has received from God, by distributing these to the needy, becomes a god to those who receive [them].”[8]   

Seen here is one application of the word “god” within the early church, and it is by no means equates those to whom it is applied with the Almighty.  Further though, Jesus was also appointed as judge. (Joh. 5:22)  The judges of Israel were identified as gods because of the divine authority that had been given them.[9] (Psa. 82:6)  Jesus proves to be our judge in a much greater sense, and so if they could be called gods, how much more so could Jesus be.  Therefore, as Thomas’s judge, his life-giver, his basis of hope and his teacher, Jesus in delivering to Thomas what he had received from God, prove to be Thomas’s God.  Not the Almighty, but one in the sense of one that works by the authority granted to him by God Almighty. Beyond that, as BDAG explains, he was a "pers[on] who elicit[ed] special reverence,"[10] and thus he was deserving of the title "god."

It might seem reasonable to object on the grounds of Thomas not speaking of him as a god, but “the God.”  This argument is based upon the use of the definite article, but it does not properly consider why the article is used.  In Greek, when a noun in the nominative case is followed by a genitive pronoun in direct address, the noun must carry the article.  To not carry it would be a violation of grammar.  In John 20:28, if Thomas is speaking of Christ as his God, the word translated “god” must carry that article because the genitive pronoun μου is following the noun. 

Moule in his Idiom book explains the matter quite well: “It John xx. 28 O kurios mou kai o Qeos mou, it is to be noted that a substantive in the Nominative case used in a vocative sense and followed by a possessive could not be anarthrous (see Hoskyns and Davey, Commentary, in loc.); the article before Qeos may, therefore, not be significant.”[11]  

As there is no grammatical or contextual basis for viewing the definite article as in place for any reason other than simple grammar, we can find no basis in forcing the text to equate Jesus with the Almighty.  Jesus, as the giver of truth, hope and life, could properly be identified as Thomas’ God.  But again, it was not that Jesus was the Almighty, but rather we find that Jesus was giving to Thomas and to all of the disciples the very things he himself had received from God.   

While this is our position on the text, we are not dogmatic in saying that Thomas must have been identifying Jesus.  It is very possible that Thomas did not intend to identify Jesus at all, and so we have published this view along with the one that we ourselves hold.  We leave to you to determine for yourself what the text actually means.  Whether Jesus is identified within the text or not, the real point is that this text does nothing to equate Jesus with the Almighty.  In fact, with Jesus having so clearly spoken of his own God only several verses prior (Joh. 20:17), one would have to assume Trinitarianism to get anything more out of John 20:28 than what we have here defined.