"My Lord and My Elohim"

"My Lord and My Elohim":

Three Texts and the Question of Identity

John 20:28, Romans 9:5, and Titus 2:13 in Jewish Monotheistic Context

Yosher Ganon  |  Hebrew House  |  5786

Introduction: The Direct Address Question

Three New Testament passages are routinely cited as definitive proof that the apostolic writers identified Yeshua as Elohim himself: Thomas's confession in John 20:28 ("My Lord and my Elohim!"), Paul's doxology in Romans 9:5 ("the Messiah, who is over all, Elohim blessed forever"), and the reference in Titus 2:13 to "our great Elohim and Savior, Yeshua the Messiah." Unlike passages that describe Yeshua's exalted status or divine agency, these texts appear to directly call Yeshua "Elohim."

High-Christology interpreters understandably treat these as smoking guns. If the New Testament authors—particularly a monotheistic Jew like Thomas and the fiercely monotheistic Paul—could address Yeshua as theos (θεός), the argument goes, then Yeshua must share in the divine identity reserved for HaShem alone. Agency categories, no matter how robust, cannot account for direct identification language. The case appears closed.

This essay argues that the case is not as straightforward as it appears. When these three passages are examined within their immediate contexts, their broader New Testament frameworks, and the conceptual world of Second Temple Judaism, each text reveals interpretive complexity that high-Christology readings often overlook. More critically, each passage contains internal controls—textual features within the same literary unit that qualify, nuance, or redirect the apparent identification claim. The question is not whether these texts use theos language about Yeshua—they do, or at least may—but what that language means within a Jewish monotheistic framework that consistently distinguishes HaShem from His exalted agent.

Part I: John 20:28 — "My Lord and My Elohim"

The Text and Its Immediate Context

Thomas's confession in John 20:28—"My Lord and my Elohim!" (ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου)—occurs in the climactic recognition scene following Yeshua's resurrection. Thomas, having refused to believe the other disciples' testimony, encounters the risen Messiah and responds with this striking declaration. The passage is structurally significant: it represents the Gospel's final resurrection appearance to the disciples before the epilogue in chapter 21, and it immediately precedes John's explicit statement of purpose in 20:30-31.

High-Christology readings take Thomas's words as a direct vocative address identifying Yeshua as Elohim. If a Jewish monotheist could address Yeshua this way, the argument goes, it can only be because Yeshua isHaShem incarnate. The confession is then read as the Gospel's theological crescendo, with John presenting Thomas's recognition of Yeshua's divine identity as the proper response to the resurrection.

This reading is plausible—but only if one assumes that theos applied to Yeshua can only mean ontological identification with the Father. The immediate context, however, provides two decisive controls that complicate this assumption.

Control 1: John 20:17 — 'My Elohim and Your Elohim'

Eleven verses earlier, in the same resurrection narrative, the risen Yeshua tells Mary Magdalene: "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my Elohim and your Elohim'" (John 20:17).

This is one of the most startling statements in the Fourth Gospel. The risen, glorified Yeshua—the one who has conquered death, who is about to be installed at HaShem's right hand—explicitly identifies the Father as "my Elohim" (ὁ θεός μου). He does not say "our Elohim" in a merely communal sense; he says "my Elohim and your Elohim," maintaining a parallel structure that places himself and the disciples in the same relationship to the Father as theos.

If Yeshua is ontologically identical with Elohim—if he shares fully in the divine nature such that what is true of the Father is true of the Son—this language is extraordinarily awkward. How does theos have theos? Standard Trinitarian theology responds by appealing to the Son's human nature: in his humanity, Yeshua relates to the Father as "my Elohim." But John does not provide such qualifications. He simply records Yeshua, as Yeshua, identifying the Father as his Elohim.

The agency reading faces no such tension. If Yeshua is HaShem's exalted human representative—the one given supreme authority precisely because of his faithful obedience—then of course the Father remains "my Elohim." Yeshua's relationship to HaShem is that of agent to sender, servant to master, appointed king to sovereign. The resurrection and ascension do not erase this relationship; they confirm it.

This creates an interpretive puzzle for reading Thomas's confession. If, eleven verses earlier, Yeshua himself identifies the Father as "my Elohim," in what sense can Thomas's "my Elohim" be understood as identifying Yeshua with that same Elohim? The most coherent reading is that Thomas is not collapsing Yeshua and the Father into a single being, but recognizing that Yeshua—as HaShem's supreme representative—now functions with divine authority and bears the divine presence. Thomas is identifying the one through whom HaShem has acted, not declaring that Yeshua is the Father.

Control 2: John 20:31 — The Gospel's Stated Purpose

The second control appears immediately after Thomas's confession. John concludes the main body of his Gospel with an explicit statement of purpose: "But these are written so that you may believe that Yeshua is the Messiah, the Son of Elohim, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31).

This is remarkable. If John's climactic point—embodied in Thomas's confession—is that Yeshua is Elohim, why does John immediately summarize his Gospel's purpose as leading readers to believe that Yeshua is "the Messiah, the Son of Elohim"? These are not synonyms for "Elohim." They are titles for HaShem's chosen representative.

"Messiah" (Χριστός, translating Hebrew mashiach) means "anointed one"—the human king from David's line whom HaShem would anoint to restore Israel and establish His kingdom. "Son of Elohim" is likewise a royal title rooted in 2 Samuel 7:14 and Psalm 2:7, where HaShem declares His relationship to the Davidic king. Both titles emphasize election, authorization, and unique relationship—not ontological identity with Elohim.

If John intended Thomas's confession to be understood as identifying Yeshua as HaShem himself, the statement of purpose in 20:31 is a strange anticlimax. It would be like ending a detective novel with the revelation that the butler is the murderer, then immediately adding, "This story was written so you would know the butler was employed by the household." True, perhaps, but it misses the supposed point.

The more coherent reading is that John intends Thomas's confession to be understood within the categories of Messiahship and divine Sonship. Thomas recognizes the risen Yeshua as Adoni—the enthroned king of Psalm 110:1—and as the one who now functions with divine authority. The language is maximal, but it operates within the framework of agency, not ontological equation.

Jewish Precedent for 'Elohim' Language Applied to Representatives

A third consideration supports the agency reading: Second Temple Judaism already possessed categories for applying theos or elohim language to human representatives without compromising monotheism.

The clearest example is Exodus 7:1, where HaShem tells Moses, "See, I have made you like Elohim [אֱלֹהִים,elohim] to Pharaoh." The Septuagint renders this θεὸν Φαραω—"a god to Pharaoh." Moses functions with divine authority in confronting Egypt. He speaks HaShem's words, executes HaShem's judgments, and manifests HaShem's power. Yet no Jewish reader understood this to mean Moses was HaShem.

Similarly, Psalm 82:6 addresses human judges as "gods" (אֱלֹהִים, elohim) and "sons of the Most High" because they exercise divine authority in rendering judgment. Yeshua himself appeals to this text in John 10:34-36, arguing that if Scripture can call those "to whom the word of Elohim came" by such exalted titles, his own claim to be "the Son of Elohim" should not be considered blasphemous.

This Jewish precedent means that Thomas, as a Jewish monotheist, could address Yeshua as "my Elohim" (ὁ θεός μου) without abandoning the Shema. He would be recognizing Yeshua as the one who now bears HaShem's authority, represents HaShem's presence, and executes HaShem's purposes—just as Moses did, but at an infinitely higher level. The language is worship language, but it is mediated worship: honoring the agent honors the one who sent him.

Summary: John 20:28 Within Johannine Theology

Thomas's confession is certainly high Christology—the language is maximal, shocking, and unparalleled in its directness. But "high" does not automatically mean "ontologically divine." When read within its immediate context (20:17, 20:31), its broader Johannine framework (17:3 - "the only true Elohim, and Yeshua Messiah whom you have sent"), and the precedent of Jewish agency categories, the confession can be coherently understood as recognizing HaShem's ultimate agent rather than identifying Yeshua as HaShem himself.

The critical question is whether the text requires the ontological reading or whether it permits the agency reading. The presence of 20:17 and 20:31 as internal controls, combined with Johannine theology's consistent distinction between "the only true Elohim" (the Father) and "Yeshua Messiah whom you have sent," strongly favors the latter.

Part II: Romans 9:5 — Textual Ambiguity and Doxological Pattern

The Punctuation Problem

Romans 9:5 presents a different kind of challenge. The verse concludes Paul's anguished reflection on Israel's unbelief:

"Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is Elohim over all, forever praised! Amen."

High-Christology interpreters read this as Paul calling Yeshua "Elohim over all, forever praised." If Paul—the fiercest monotheist in the New Testament, the one who repeatedly distinguishes "Elohim the Father" from "the Lord Yeshua Messiah"—can directly identify the Messiah as theos, the argument goes, then Yeshua must share in the divine identity.

The problem is that ancient Greek manuscripts had no punctuation. The decision about where to place periods, commas, and capitalization is an interpretive choice made by modern translators. The Greek text of Romans 9:5 can be punctuated in at least two ways:

Option 1 (High-Christology):

"...the Messiah, who is Elohim over all, forever praised. Amen."

(This reading treats "who is Elohim over all" as a relative clause identifying the Messiah.)

Option 2 (Doxology to the Father):

"...the Messiah. Elohim who is over all be forever praised! Amen."

(This reading treats "Elohim who is over all be forever praised" as an independent doxology to the Father, a standard Jewish conclusion after mentioning HaShem's faithfulness.)

Paul's Doxological Pattern

Which punctuation is more likely? The answer lies in Paul's consistent pattern throughout his letters. Paul regularly concludes sections dealing with HaShem's faithfulness with spontaneous doxologies directed to the Father:

• Romans 1:25 — "the Creator, who is forever praised. Amen."

• Romans 11:33-36 — "Oh, the depth of the riches... To him be the glory forever! Amen."

• 2 Corinthians 11:31 — "The Elohim and Father of the Lord Yeshua... knows that I am not lying."

• Galatians 1:5 — "to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."

• Ephesians 3:20-21 — "Now to him who is able... to him be glory... Amen."

In every case, these doxologies are directed to "Elohim" or "the Father," never to Yeshua. Romans 9:1-5 is precisely the kind of context that would prompt such a doxology: Paul has been reflecting on Israel's unique privileges (the patriarchs, the covenants, the promises, the Messiah himself) and HaShem's faithfulness despite Israel's unbelief. A spontaneous "Elohim who is over all be forever praised!" is exactly what we would expect from Paul at this point.

Paul's Consistent Distinction Between Elohim and Messiah

More decisively, Paul's theological vocabulary throughout Romans and his other letters maintains a clear distinction between "Elohim" (ὁ θεός) and "the Lord Yeshua Messiah" (ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός). Consider Paul's standard greetings:

• Romans 1:7 — "Grace and peace to you from Elohim our Father and from the Lord Yeshua Messiah."

• 1 Corinthians 1:3 — "Grace and peace from Elohim our Father and the Lord Yeshua Messiah."

• 2 Corinthians 1:2 — "Grace and peace from Elohim our Father and the Lord Yeshua Messiah."

This formulaic distinction appears in every Pauline letter. "Elohim" consistently refers to the Father, while "Lord" refers to Yeshua. Paul never blurs this distinction by calling Yeshua "Elohim" in an unambiguous way elsewhere. Why would he suddenly do so in Romans 9:5, in the middle of a lament about Israel, without any explanation or theological development?

Summary: Romans 9:5 as Doxology

Given:

1. The ambiguity created by the absence of punctuation in ancient manuscripts

2. Paul's consistent pattern of concluding theological reflections with doxologies to the Father

3. Paul's unwavering distinction between "Elohim" (the Father) and "the Lord Yeshua Messiah" throughout his letters

4. The appropriateness of a doxology to HaShem at precisely this point in the argument

The most coherent reading is that Romans 9:5 contains a doxology to the Father, not an identification of Yeshua as theos. The verse should be read: "...the Messiah according to the flesh. Elohim who is over all be forever praised! Amen."

Even if one prefers the high-Christology punctuation, the verse remains exegetically ambiguous enough that it cannot bear the weight placed on it as a proof-text for Yeshua's deity. At minimum, it requires additional clear statements elsewhere in Paul to establish the claim—and those clear statements do not exist. What we find instead is consistent subordination of the Son to the Father (1 Cor 15:28, 1 Cor 11:3, 1 Cor 3:23).

Part III: Titus 2:13 — Granville Sharp and the Granville Sharp Debate

The Grammatical Question

Titus 2:13 speaks of "the appearing of the glory of our great Elohim and Savior, Yeshua the Messiah" (τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). High-Christology interpreters argue that the Greek grammar requires us to read "Elohim and Savior" as referring to a single person—Yeshua—thus directly calling him "our great Elohim."

The grammatical argument rests on what's called the Granville Sharp Rule: when two nouns in Greek are connected by kai ("and") and both are governed by a single definite article, they refer to the same person. In Titus 2:13, there is one article (τοῦ) governing both "Elohim" (θεοῦ) and "Savior" (σωτῆρος), which would grammatically identify them as the same individual.

Exceptions and Ambiguities in Granville Sharp

However, the Granville Sharp Rule has well-documented exceptions, particularly when:

1. The nouns are abstract rather than personal (e.g., "the hope and expectation" can refer to two different things)

2. The nouns are titles rather than proper names

3. One or both nouns are regularly used as divine titles in ways that could apply to representatives

In Titus 2:13, both "Elohim" (θεός) and "Savior" (σωτήρ) are titles, not personal names. Moreover, "Savior" is regularly applied to both the Father and Yeshua in the Pastoral Epistles, creating potential ambiguity. The verse could be read as:

"the appearing of the glory of our great Elohim, and [the appearing] of our Savior Yeshua the Messiah."

This reading treats "our great Elohim" as the Father and "our Savior Yeshua" as the one through whom the Father's glory appears. The glory belongs to HaShem; Yeshua is the agent of its manifestation.

Contextual Pattern in the Pastoral Epistles

More decisively, the Pastoral Epistles consistently distinguish between "Elohim" (the Father) and "the Messiah Yeshua" elsewhere:

• 1 Timothy 2:5 — "For there is one Elohim and one mediator between Elohim and humanity, the man Messiah Yeshua."

• 1 Timothy 5:21 — "I charge you, in the sight of Elohim and Messiah Yeshua and the elect angels..."

• 2 Timothy 4:1 — "I charge you in the presence of Elohim and of Messiah Yeshua, who will judge the living and the dead..."

In each case, "Elohim" and "Messiah Yeshua" are clearly distinguished. Most strikingly, 1 Timothy 2:5 not only distinguishes them but explicitly calls Yeshua "the man" (ὁ ἄνθρωπος) and describes him as "mediator" between Elohim and humanity. If the author of 1 Timothy understood Yeshua to be ontologically Elohim, calling him "the man" and placing him between Elohim and humanity is extraordinarily awkward.

Even If Yeshua Is Called 'Elohim,' What Does It Mean?

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Granville Sharp Rule does apply and Titus 2:13 calls Yeshua "our great Elohim." The question remains: what does that mean?

As established in the discussion of John 20:28, Second Temple Judaism already had categories for applying theos / elohim language to authorized representatives (Moses in Exodus 7:1, judges in Psalm 82:6) without implying ontological identity with HaShem. If the term can be used functionally—describing one who acts with divine authority and represents divine presence—then even a direct application of theos to Yeshua does not necessarily require us to abandon the agency framework.

The critical issue is not "Can Yeshua be called theos?" but "What theological framework governs the use of theos when applied to Yeshua?" If the broader New Testament consistently subordinates Yeshua to the Father, distinguishes "the only true Elohim" (the Father) from "Yeshua Messiah whom you have sent" (John 17:3), and describes Yeshua as "the man" who mediates between Elohim and humanity (1 Tim 2:5), then any theoslanguage must be understood within that framework—as functional and representative, not ontological.

Conclusion: Three Texts, One Pattern

When John 20:28, Romans 9:5, and Titus 2:13 are examined carefully within their immediate contexts and broader theological frameworks, a consistent pattern emerges:

1. Each text is exegetically ambiguous. John 20:28 occurs alongside 20:17 ("my Elohim") and 20:31 ("Messiah, Son of Elohim""). Romans 9:5 depends entirely on punctuation. Titus 2:13 involves grammatical rules with known exceptions.

2. Each text contains internal controls. The very passages cited as proof of Yeshua's deity contain features that qualify or redirect the claim: Yeshua calling the Father "my Elohim," Paul's doxological pattern, the Pastorals' consistent distinction between Elohim and the human mediator.

3. The broader New Testament pattern consistently distinguishes HaShem from Yeshua. Paul's greetings, John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 15:28, Hebrews 1-2, and Acts 2:36 all maintain a clear theological structure: Elohim (the Father) is the ultimate source, and Yeshua is the exalted human agent through whom HaShem acts.

4. Jewish monotheistic categories already included functional use of 'Elohim' language. Moses, judges, and angels could be called by divine titles when functioning as HaShem's representatives. This means that even if the New Testament directly calls Yeshua theos, the question remains: theos in what sense? Ontologically, or functionally as the supreme agent?

The cumulative force of these observations is substantial. High-Christology interpreters must not only establish that these three texts can be read as identifying Yeshua as Elohim—they must demonstrate that this reading is required and that the agency reading is impossible. Given the ambiguity of each text, the presence of internal controls, and the broader New Testament pattern of subordination, that burden has not been met.

The alternative—the agency reading—accounts for the exalted language without requiring ontological identification. Thomas recognizes the risen Yeshua as HaShem's supreme representative. Paul spontaneously praises HaShem for His faithfulness to Israel. Titus speaks of the glory of Elohim appearing through the Savior Yeshua. And all of this fits seamlessly with the consistent New Testament testimony: "There is one Elohim, the Father... and one Lord, Yeshua the Messiah" (1 Cor 8:6).

To read these three texts as proof of Yeshua's ontological deity is to impose a later theological framework on passages that function perfectly well—and more coherently—within the Jewish agency categories the apostles already possessed. The high language is real. The worship is real. The authority is real. But none of it requires abandoning the Shema or redefining Elohim. It requires recognizing that HaShem has exalted a human being to share in His rule, just as the prophets foretold.