Evidence bridge
What does the controlling Tanakh evidence establish about this claim: John 20:17 “my God and your God” after resurrection?
The goal is to know exactly where the evidence ends at “John 20:17 “my God and your God” after resurrection”, so later theology cannot borrow certainty from a source that never supplied it.
What this article established
John 20:17 has the risen Jesus say “my God and your God.” Classical Trinitarian theology can explain that through Jesus’ continuing humanity, but the verse itself distinguishes Jesus from the One he calls God; it does not teach co-equal divine essence.
- Verified: the risen Jesus in John 20:17 calls the Father “my God.”
- Verified: he identifies that same God as the disciples’ God.
- Compatible with Tanakh’s human-Messiah category: an exalted Davidic servant who has Hashem as his God.
- Possible within later Trinitarian theology: explaining the language through Jesus’ human nature and distinction of divine Persons.
- Unsupported by John 20:17 itself: claiming the verse teaches that Jesus and the Father are co-equal Persons sharing one divine essence.
The question that still remains
When “What does the controlling Tanakh evidence establish about this claim: John 20:17 “my God and your God” after resurrection?” is no longer left vague, can the surrounding argument still be sustained across Whether Trinitarian doctrine coheres with Sinai and divine simplicity from the Shema, Torah’s anti-image and divine-unity language, the specific prooftext?
Why this book is the next step
The reason for this book is structural, not topical coincidence: John, 20:17, your, resurrection opens into When “What does the controlling Tanakh evidence establish about this claim: John 20:17 “my God and your God” after resurrection?” is no longer left vague, can the surrounding argument still be sustained across Whether Trinitarian doctrine coheres with Sinai and divine simplicity from the Shema, Torah’s anti-image and divine-unity language, the specific prooftext? and the book is specifically organized around Whether Trinitarian doctrine coheres with Sinai and divine simplicity. A broader title would dilute the John / 20:17 / your / resurrection evidence family; a narrower article would not reach the cross-text question. The worked hinge that makes this assignment specific is John 20:17 / John / 20:17 / your / resurrection.
From the wider question raised by “What does the controlling Tanakh evidence establish about this claim: John 20:17 “my God and your God” after resurrection?”, the book choice becomes specific: The Trinity vs Absolute Unity: Sinai, Divine Simplicity, and the Limits of Relational Godhood carries the investigation into Whether Trinitarian doctrine coheres with Sinai and divine simplicity.