Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 20:28

Para un estudio avanzado de: “ <div style=" margin-bottom: 16px; background-color: #ffcc00; padding: 10px 15px; text-align: center; font-size: 18px; font-weight: bold; color: #000; border-radius: 6px; box-shadow: 0 2px 4px rgba(0,0,0,0.2); user-select: none; "> <a href="https://master.bibles.cloud" target="_blank" style="color: inherit; text-decoration: none;"> Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual </a> </div>Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 20:28” utilice nuestra app.

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

28. And Thomas answered ] Omit ‘and.’ This answer and Christ’s comment, ‘because thou hast seen,’ seem to shew that S. Thomas did not use the test which he had demanded. In accordance with his desponding temperament he had underrated the possibilities of being convinced.

My Lord and my God ] Most unnatural is the Unitarian view, that these words are an expression of astonishment addressed to God. Against this are (1) the plain and conclusive ‘said unto Him;’ (2) the words ‘my Lord,’ which manifestly are addressed to Christ (comp. Joh 20:13); (3) the fact that this confession of faith forms a climax and conclusion to the whole Gospel. The words are rightly considered as an impassioned declaration on the part of a devoted but (in the better sense of the term) sceptical Apostle of his conviction, not merely that his Risen Lord stood before him, but that this Lord was also his God. And it must be noted that Christ does not correct His Apostle for this avowal, any more than He corrected the Jews for supposing that He claimed to be ‘equal with God’ (Joh 5:18-19); on the contrary He accepts and approves this confession of belief in His Divinity.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

My Lord and my God – In this passage the name God is expressly given to Christ, in his own presence and by one of his own apostles. This declaration has been considered as a clear proof of the divinity of Christ, for the following reasons:

1. There is no evidence that this was a mere expression, as some have supposed, of surprise or astonishment.

2. The language was addressed to Jesus himself – Thomas …said unto him.

3. The Saviour did not reprove him or check him as using any improper language. If he had not been divine, it is impossible to reconcile it with his honesty that he did not rebuke the disciple. No pious man would have allowed such language to be addressed to him. Compare Act 14:13-15; Rev 22:8-9.

4. The Saviour proceeds immediately to commend Thomas for believing; but what was the evidence of his believing? It was this declaration, and this only. If this was a mere exclamation of surprise, what proof was it that Thomas believed? Before this he doubted. Now he believed, and gave utterance to his belief, that Jesus was his Lord and his God.

5. If this was not the meaning of Thomas, then his exclamation was a mere act of profaneness, and the Saviour would not have commended him for taking the name of the Lord his God in vain. The passage proves, therefore, that it is proper to apply to Christ the name Lord and God, and thus accords with what John affirmed in Joh 1:1, and which is established throughout this gospel.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Joh 20:28

And Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God

My Lord and my God

Let us consider

THE EXCLAMATION OF THOMAS. It is as much as a man could say if he wished to assert dogmatically that Jesus is God and Lord (Psa 35:23). To escape from the force of this confession some have charged Thomas with breaking the third commandment, just as thoughtless persons take the Lords name in vain and say, Good God! or O Lord! This could not have been the case. For, in the first place, it was not the habit of a Jew to use any such exclamation when surprised. The Jews in our Lords time were particular beyond everything about using the name of God. In the next place, it was not rebuked by our Lord, and we may be sure He would not have suffered such an unhallowed cry to have gone without a reprimand. Observe, too, that it was addressed to the Lord Jesus.

1. It was not a mere outburst, accepted by our Lord as an evidence of faith, but a devout expression of holy wonder at the discovery that Jesus was his Lord and God, and probably also at the fact that he has not seen it long before. Had he not been present when Jesus trod the sea? &c. Now on a sudden he does know his Lord, and such knowledge is too wonderful for him. How I wish you would all follow Thomas! I will stop that you may do so. Let us wonder and admire!

2. An expression of immeasurable delight. He seems to take hold of the Lord Jesus with both hands, by those two blessed mys. There is here a music akin to my beloved is mine, and I am His. I pray you follow Thomas in this. Before you Jesus now stands, visible to your faith. Delight yourselves in him.

3. An indication of a complete change of mind, a most hearty repentance. Instead of putting his finger into the print of the nails, he cried, My Lord and my God.

4. A brief confession of faith. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he be able to unite with Thomas heartily in this creed.

5. An enthusiastic profession of his allegiance to Christ. Henceforth, thou art my Lord, and I will serve Thee; Thou art my God, and I will worship Thee.

6. A distinct and direct act of adoration.

II. HOW DID HE COME TO THAT EXCLAMATION?

1. He had his thoughts revealed. The Saviour had read them at a distance. Notice that the Saviour did not say, Put thy finger into the nail-prints in My feet. Why not? Why, because Thomas had not said anything about His feet. We, in looking at it, can see the exactness; bat Thomas must have felt it much more.

2. All the past must have risen before his mind, the many occasions in which the Lord Jesus had exercised the attributes of Deity.

3. The very manner of the Saviour, so full of majesty, convinced the trembling disciple.

4. But the most convincing were our Lords wounds.

III. HOW WE MAY COME TO IT. If ever any one of us shall cry in spirit and in truth, My Lord and my God! the Holy Spirit must teach us. We shall so cry

1. At conversion.

2. In deliverance from temptation.

3. In time of trouble, when we are comforted and upheld. There have been other occasions less trying.

4. While studying the story of our Lord.

5. In the breaking of bread.

6. In times when He has blessed our labours, and laid His arm bare in the salvation of men.

7. In the hour of death.

8. In heaven. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

My Lord and my God

I. THIS IS NOT AN EXCLAMATION

1. Because such exclamations were abhorrent to the Jews.

2. It would be without warrant in Scripture.

3. It is by its form necessarily an address–Thomas said to Him.

II. THE MEANING OF THE WORDS.

1. Lord, , means owner, and as ownership includes control, it expressed

(1) The idea of ownership founded on possession, as Lord of the Vineyard, Lord of Slaves, Lord of the whole earth.

(2) The Lordship without reference to its ground; hence kings are also called lords. So also heads of families, husbands, &c.

(3) Hence a mere title of courtesy as dominus, mister, &c.

(4) As applied to God it retains its relative meaning–the relation of God to His creatures as their Owner and absolute Ruler. It is substituted in the

LXX. for Jehovah, Shaddai, Elohim, and not only for Aden or Adonai. Hence in the New Testament it is used for Christ. He is our Lord in the sense in which Jehovah was the Lord of the Hebrews. Christ owns us both as Creator and Redeemer.

2. God. What this means passes all understanding and imagination. It is easy to say, God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, &c. But who can comprehend the Infinite? We know that one infinite in His Being and perfections must be

(1) The object of adoration, supreme love, absolute submission.

(2) The ground of confidence.

(3) One in whose favour is eternal life. All that God is, Christ is. All that is due to God is due to Christ.

3. My means not only that Christ is the Person whom we acknowledge and confess to be our Lord and God, to the exclusion of all other persons out of the Godhead; but that He stands in the relation of Lord and God to us, and that we stand in a corresponding relation to Him; that we recognize His ownership and authority; depend on His protection, adore, love, trust, and serve Him as our Lord and God. This it is to be a Christian. (C. Hodge, D. D.)

The confession of Thomas:

The words imply

I. SELF-KNOWLEDGE.

1. When Thomas says this he is confessing that his past life has been a mistake. The arrogance of his former speech contrasts strikingly with the lowliness of this. A new revelation had been given him, making known the one great need of his souls Lord to control his will, and form his judgment, and give law to his inmost spirit. Our great want is a ruler; submission is one of the deepest of human needs.

(1) Let self-will be ever so successful, the heart is still unsatisfied. Ambition is soon sated; and the head that wears a crown is uneasy, not more because of the cares of government than because the monarch is tired of himself. Even the partial stimulus which self-seekers have, while yet they are striving for their object, witnesses to the same truth; a man may choose his aim, but when he has chosen it, it controls him. No man ever found rest till his aim in life was decided on. Seeking an object, men for a time are tranquil, for they are freed from self; but when their object is secured, they fall again into the restlessness of bondage to a self that is insufficient for them.

(2) Look now at another class of men of nobler character. The truth-seeker is freed from self, for he feels truth to be absolute, independent of him, and he yields allegiance to it. The lover of right is under an eternal law of rectitude; righteousness is not something that he invents. Right is, and is his lord. Duty is what we owe, not what we choose to give. But what is truth? Its seekers are all in disagreement. What is right? The standard of rectitude in our England is very different from that of ancient Rome. Has duty any higher standard than statute law, or regard for the greatest happiness of the greatest number? These very words set us again upon a drifting sea of self-will. Truth, duty, rectitude–these are cold words. To stir passion and control affection they must be seen embodied in personal form. Love, reverence–these are the hearts deep wants. Cold abstractions can never deliver us from self

2. Thomas had found all he needed in Christ. Christ was the Truth; His will absolute righteousness; duty was what he owed to Him. There was no coldness nor vagueness in these names when summed up in the person of His Lord. Love rises to worship in his confession; his heart is at rest when he says, my Lord.

(1) This is the secret of Christs power over men. He comes among them as their Lord; He claims authority and submission. Christ does not allure men by pleasures, flattering their self-will. He simply bids them Follow Me, and they leave all and follow Him. He speaks to those to whom self-will is barrenness, and there is fruitfulness. He speaks to those whose selfishness is weakness and disease, and in obedience to Him come health and energy. And herein do we see the meaning of Come unto Me all ye that labour Take My yoke upon you, &c. For in meekness and obedience our spirits find their end and purpose, and herein is rest.

(2) In Christ, too, we see how blessed to yield our wills to the will of God. He who came to tell us that we are ruined, because we seek our own wills and not the will of God, must Himself be submissive. He who came revealing absolute truth and righteousness, claiming our homage for them, must Himself yield them homage. Christ can rule because He knows how to obey.

II. KNOWLEDGE OF THE MEANING OF LIFE.

1. It was Christs perfect knowledge of Thomas which brought from him the confession.

(1) Christ had heard the sceptical words; He had been with Thomas, though Thomas had not been with Him. But Thomas could not stop here; as none can rest in one separate instance of His knowledge and grace. He who knew this must know all. All his past life would flash upon him, and he would recognize it all as Christs plan to educate and bring him to Himself.

(2) Christ had done infinitely more than to simply give Thomas his own test for the resurrection; He had brought Thomas to a better mind, and made that test appear absurd. The touch would only have convinced that the risen Jesus was here; Thomas, without touching Him, calls Him My Lord and my God. Underlying Thomass wish for sensible proof there had been the unquenchable longing for personal intercourse. That John and the others had seen Christ was nothing to him. Nothing can reveal a personal Lord to us but that Lords communion with ourselves. Thomass heart was satisfied now, and to Christs guidance he could absolutely submit.

2. It is such a guide we want; one who can read our heart and supply every need. It is such a guide we preach in Jesus; not one who lived a few years in Palestine; but One who was before all things, and who is ever with His people. He knows you, for He formed you for Himself; your life, with all its difficulties and perplexities, is His plan for educating you for Himself and God. Each doubt He is waiting to clear away; even your wilfulness does not drive Him from your side.

III. KNOWLEDGE OF GOD.

1. Thomas recognized the character of God rather than the dignity of Christ, and herein lay the true value of his confession. The mere confession that Christ is a Divine Person is barren; the knowledge that God is come into actual fellowship with us in Christ is new life to the spirit. The looking for God in awful grandeur obscures the perception of God in the perfection of moral excellence, the influence by which goodness sways the heart. It was to deliver men from this very error that Christ came. The disciples were ever expecting that Christ would communicate some stupendous truth concerning God. Gradually their conceptions of Him became exalted; Christs own words were fulfiled, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Here at length from Thomas breaks the full confession that this is God.

2. Thomas could not say, My Lord, without saying also My God; for it is shocking to yield the whole heart to any other than God. In the fact that he could not but adore Jesus, that Jesus claimed and had won his homage, it was revealed that Jesus was Divine. If He be not God, then are we idolaters; for idolatry is the love and service of the creature as though it were supreme; and higher love and service than Christ has won from Christian hearts is impossible. If He be not God, then have we two Gods: the one a name, a cold abstraction; the other the Jesus who sways our spirits and to whom we render the consecration of our lives.

3. We may now see why so much importance is attached in the New Testament to the Divinity of Christ. The confession of Christ is not an act of the speculative intellect, it is the movement of the heart and the submission of the life to Him. There are Christian Unitarians who call Christ Lord, though they hold back from calling Him God. There are un-Christian Trinitarians who call Christ God, and yet He manifestly is not their Lord. It is sad that the words My Lord and my God should ever be separated. But he is a Christian, whatever the articles of his creed, who finds Christ sufficient for the souls need, and whose life reveals that it is under His rule. (A. Mackennel, D. D.)

Thomass confession of faith:

These words imply

I. JOYFUL RECOGNITION. Partings are painful; but the bereavement of the ten was over. And now the restored fellowship of Christ brought Thomas peace. So every new revelation of Christ brings joy to His disciples now. But recognitions are not always joyful (1Ki 21:20; Mt Mar 1:24; Rev 1:5; Rev 6:15-16). How different the meeting of loved ones (Act 12:14-16; Act 28:15; Gen 45:26; Gen 46:30). So Thomas and all disciples rejoice in Christ who, though He was dead, is alive again, and crowned with glory and honour.

II. DIVINE HOMAGE. Friends rise in our estimation as we know them better. Love tested by trial. Suffering and death reveal the soul. Perhaps we never see so clearly the greatness of our friend as when he is taken from us. So it seems to have been with the disciples. It was only after the Resurrection that they beheld the fulness of His glory. What a testimony to the Divine greatness of Jesus in this confession How horrified was Paul Act 14:15-16); Peter (Act 10:25); the angel (Rev 22:9) at the thought of being worshipped; but Jesus receives it as His right.

III. APPROPRIATING FAITH, My, a little word, but of deep significance. Faith is a personal thing. Mark the difference between Thomass faith and

1. The faith of devils (Jam 2:19; 1Jn 5:10-12).

2. The faith of mere believers in historical Christianity. It is one thing to say, The Lord He is God, and another to say, My Lord and my God. Luther says that the marrow of the gospel is in the possessive pronouns.

IV. SELF-SURRENDERING LOVE. Paul says, Yield yourselves to God. This is the difficulty; but never till it is done are we truly converted. But once done it is done for ever. The sight of Jesus wins the heart. Conclusion: Happy are those who can say, My Lord and my God. Here is

1. The true bond of union (1Co 1:2; 2Co 10:1).

2. The noblest inspiration of life (2Co 5:14).

3. Strength for work.

4. Comfort in trouble.

5. Hope in death (2Co 4:6-8). (W. Forsyth, M. A.)

Christ satisfying the instinct of reverence

I. THE INSTINCT.

1. Reverence is a word by itself, and has no synomym. It is not respect, regard, fear, honour, nor even awe. It would be inaccurate to apply it to wealth, rank or power. If we reverence their possessor it must be for something over and above them. Even if we give it to age, royalty, or genius, it is only because there is in these a touch of sacredness. For reverence is the sense of something essentially and not accidently above us. Old age is above in the incommunicable sanctity of an ampler experience, and a nearer heaven; royalty is the theory of a Divine commission and a theocratic representation; genius is the possession of an original intuition which is to be a voice for mankind.

2. This reverence is an instinct; but there is much to support the theory of an instinct of irreverence. The insolence of lusty youth, clever shallowness which denies admiration, and can see in religion only a sentiment, or a thing for ridicule, such a spirit may be common in literature and society, but it is no instinct; it is a degeneracy. Man worthy of the name has always something above him; and even where self presides at the worship, it is rather as priest than idol

3. It is easy to misdirect this instinct. Man feels himself very little, an atom in a mighty system. There must be something above him. What? The celestial bodies? This instinct enforces a worship. What object so worthy as they? There are those now who reverence nature, and law to them is but a name for deity, and they worship this unknown god. Others a beautiful friend, till they find some day the idol broken in pieces or vanished. Nor do these misdirections cease when at last God becomes the object, inasmuch as reverence for church architecture, decoration, and music may be giving His glory to another.

II. CHRIST SATISFYING THIS INSTINCT.

1. The instinct is abroad seeking its object. It finds it not in an abstraction. Nature cannot satisfy it. It may be a grand thought that I am part of a system which is the universe and whose breath is deity. Yet I, insignificant I, find no rest in this vastness. I go forth among my fellows, and cannot help loving and reverencing: yet the bright illusion vanishes.

2. Shall it always be thus? I see an end of all perfection, and yet there is in me an idea of perfection, might I but attain unto it. Is there none such? Yes, there is God–the Infinite, Eternal, Self-existent. Yet I feel myself in the land of things too high for me and too vast. Cannot I get nearer, until I touch? To answer this Christ comes forth, takes our nature, obeys, loves, suffers, dies, and bids us follow Him with a love as devoted as it is unidolatrous, being very man and very God.

3. Can this one heart contain all the devotions of all men? Can I be assured of attention in the adored of the nations? Yes. If any man thirst, &c. (Dean Vaughan)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 28. Thomas answered, c.] Those who deny the Godhead of Christ would have us to believe that these words are an exclamation of Thomas, made through surprise, and that they were addressed to the Father and not to Christ. Theodore of Mopsuestia was the first, I believe, who gave the words this turn and the fifth OEcumenic council, held at Constantinople, anathematized him for it. This was not according to the spirit of the Gospel of God. However, a man must do violence to every rule of construction who can apply the address here to any but Christ. The text is plain: Jesus comes in – sees Thomas, and addresses him; desiring him to come to him, and put his finger into the print of the nails, c. Thomas, perfectly satisfied of the reality of our Lord’s resurrection, says unto him,-MY LORD! and MY GOD! i.e. Thou art indeed the very same person,-my Lord whose disciple I have so long been and thou art my God, henceforth the object of my religious adoration. Thomas was the first who gave the title of God to Jesus; and, by this glorious confession, made some amends for his former obstinate incredulity. It is worthy of remark, that from this time forward the whole of the disciples treated our Lord with the most supreme respect, never using that familiarity towards him which they had often used before. The resurrection from the dead gave them the fullest proof of the divinity of Christ. And this, indeed, is the use which St. John makes of this manifestation of Christ. See Joh 20:30-31. Bishop Pearce says here: “Observe that Thomas calls Jesus his God, and that Jesus does not reprove him for it, though probably it was the first time he was called so.” And, I would ask, could Jesus be jealous of the honour of the true God-could he be a prophet-could he be even an honest man, to permit his disciple to indulge in a mistake so monstrous and destructive, if it had been one?

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

My Lord, to whom I wholly yield and give up my self; and my God, in whom I believe. It is observed, that this is the first time that in the Gospel the name of God is given to Christ; he was now by his resurrection declared to be the Son of God with power, Rev 1:4. So as Thomas did not show more weakness and unbelief at the first, than he showed faith at last, being the first that acknowledged Christ as God over all blessed for ever, the object of peoples faith and confidence, and his Lord, to whom he freely yielded up himself as a servant, to be guided and conducted by him.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

28. Thomas answered and said untohim, My Lord and my GodThat Thomas did not do whatJesus invited him to do, and what he had made the condition of hisbelieving, seems plain from Joh20:29 (“Because thou hast seen Me, thou hastbelieved”). He is overpowered, and the glory of Christ nowbreaks upon him in a flood. His exclamation surpasses all that hadbeen yet uttered, nor can it be surpassed by anything that ever willbe uttered in earth or heaven. On the striking parallel in Nathanael,see on Joh 1:49. The Socinianinvasion of the supreme divinity of Christ here manifestly taughtasif it were a mere call upon God in a fit of astonishmentis beneathnotice, save for the profanity it charges upon this disciple, and thestraits to which it shows themselves reduced.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And Thomas answered and said unto him,…. Without examining his hands and side, and as astonished at his condescension and grace, and ashamed of his unbelief:

my Lord and my God; he owns him to be Lord, as he was both by creation and redemption; and God, of which he was fully assured from his omniscience, which he had given a full proof of, and from the power that went along with his words to his heart, and from a full conviction he now had of his resurrection from the dead. He asserts his interest in him as his Lord and his God; which denotes his subjection to him, his affection for him, and faith in him; so the divine word is called in Philo the Jew, , “my Lord” x.

x Lib. Allegor. l. 2. p. 101.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

My Lord and my God (H ). Not exclamation, but address, the vocative case though the form of the nominative, a very common thing in the Koine. Thomas was wholly convinced and did not hesitate to address the Risen Christ as Lord and God. And Jesus accepts the words and praises Thomas for so doing.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

1) “And Thomas answered and said unto him,” (apekrithe Thomas kai eipen auto) ”Thomas replied and said directly and personally to him,” to Jesus. Though his confession of faith was slow in coming, it now came with full expression, wholehearted commitment, Psa 118:28; Joh 5:23.

2) “My Lord and my God.” (ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou) “You are my Lord and my God,” the whole of Redemption and Divinity to me, 1Ti 3:16; 1Co 12:3.

UNBELIEF

A pious man and woman had an only son, named Thomas, who, to the great grief of his parents, began to turn out wild. Mr. Rees, a worthy minister, went to lodge at the house, and the father and mother, -with many tears, informed him of the ungodliness of their son. The following morning, before family prayer, Mr. Rees took hold of the young man’s hand, and spoke very seriously and affectionately to him respecting his salvation. In family worship he prayed for him with great enlargement, and amongst others, used the following expression: “O Lord, say to this Thomas, ‘Be not faithless, but believing,’ ” The words, to use his own expression, entered his heart like a sword, and a permanent change was affected: he soon became a church member, and was an ornament to his Christian profession till death.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

(28) Thomas answered and said unto him.It is implied that he did not make use of the tests which his Master offered him, but that he at once expressed the fulness of his conviction. This is confirmed by the words of the next verse, Because thou hast seen Me.

My Lord and my God.These words are preceded by said unto him, and are followed by because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed; and the words my Lord can only be referred to Christ. (Comp. Joh. 20:13.) The sentence cannot therefore, without violence to the context, be taken as an exclamation addressed to God, and is to be understood in the natural meaning of a confession by the Apostle that his Lord was also God.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

28. My Lord and my God Thomas now does nobly. He has his fill of proof and tact, and he pours heart and soul and body into an act of faith and confession. We may now see that Thomas had never been at bottom an infidel. Even under his I will not believe there was at bottom a spirit of faith; and when the load of despondency is removed, he rises at a spring into a higher confession than apostle ever yet uttered. That Thomas here recognized in Christ that divinity which the great body of the Church attributes to Jesus, has been the view received from antiquity to this day. It is not to be questioned without results fundamentally dangerous.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Joh 20:28. Thomas answered and said, &c. Though the nominative often occurs for the vocative, it is the former case which is used here, the words , thou art, being understood. To this the context agrees; for we are told that these words were addressed to Jesus; wherefore they cannot be taken merely as an exclamation of surprise, which is the Socinian gloss; but their meaning is, “Thou art really he whom I lately followed as my Lord; and I confess thee to be possessed of infinite knowledge, and worship thee as my God.” It is not fair that Thomas actually touched our Lord’s wounds; and Christ himself says afterwards, Joh 20:29 that his belief was built on sight; which, though it does not exclude any evidence that might have been afforded the other senses, yet seems to intimate, that this condescension of our Lord, together with the additional evidence arising from the knowledge that he plainly had of that unreasonable demand which Thomas had made in his absence, with divine grace accompanying the whole, quite overcame him.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Joh 20:28-29 . The doubts of Thomas, whose faith did not now require actual contact (hence also merely , Joh 20:29 ), are converted into a straightforward and devoted confession; comp. Joh 11:16 .

. ] is taken by Theodore of Mopsuestia (“quasi pro miraculo facto Deum collaudat,” ed. Fritzsche, p. 41) as an exclamation of astonishment directed to God . So recently, in accordance with the Socinians (see against these Calovius), especially Paulus. Decisively opposed to this view is , as well as the necessary reference of . to Christ. It is a confessionary invocation of Christ in the highest joyful surprise, in which Thomas gives the fullest expression of profound emotion to his faith, which had been mightily elevated by the conviction of the reality of the resurrection, in the divine nature of his Lord. The powerful emotion certainly appears in and of itself little fitted to qualify this exclamation, which Ewald even terms exaggerated for the dogmatic conception; but this is outweighed (1) by the account of John himself, who could find in this exclamation only an echo of his own , and of the self-testimonies of Jesus concerning His divine nature; (2) and chiefly by the approval of the Lord which follows. Erasmus aptly says: “ Agnovit Christus utique repulsurus , si falso dictus fuisset Deus.” Note further (1) the climax of the two expressions; (2) how the amazed disciple keeps them apart from one another with a solemn emphasis by repeating the article [270] and the . This , again, is the outflow “ex vivo et serio fidei sensu,” Calvin.

Joh 20:29 . The . . was the complete and highest confession of Messianic faith , by the rendering of which, therefore, the above was already fulfilled. But it was the consequence of the having seen the Risen One, which he should not have required to do, considering the sufficient ground of conviction which lay in the assurance of his fellow-disciples as eye-witnesses. Hence the loving reproof (not eulogy , which Paulus devises, but also not a confirmation of the contents of faith as conferred by Thomas, as Luthardt assumes, which is first implied in , . . .) for him who has attained in this sensuous way to decisive faith, and the ascription of blessedness to those who, without such a sensuous conviction, have become believers, this is to be left as a general truth, and not to be referred to the other disciples , since it is expressed in a general way, and, in accordance with the supersensuous and ethical nature of faith, is universally valid . In detail, note further: (1) to read interrogatively (with Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Ewald) makes the element of reproof in the words, indicated by the emphatic (comp. Joh 1:51 ) precedence of . , appear with more vivid prominence; (2) the perf. is: thou hast become believing and believest now; the aor . participles and . do not denote wont (Lcke), which usage is never found in the N. T., and would here yield no suitable meaning, but those who, regarded from the point of time of the predicated of them, have not seen, and yet have believed; they have become believers without having first seen. (3) The point of time of the is, in correspondence with the general proposition, the universal present , and the itself is the happiness which they enjoy through the already present, and one day the eternal, possession of the Messianic . (4) The is not denied to Thomas, but for his warning the rule is adduced, to which he also ought to have subjected himself, and the danger is pointed out to him in which one is placed if one demands sight as a way to faith, as he has done. (5) The antithesis to the present passage is, therefore, not that of faith on account of that which has externally taken place , and of faith certain in itself of its contents (Baur, comp. Scholten), but of faith (in a thing that has taken place) with and without a personal and peculiar perception of it by the senses. (6) How significant is the declaration , . . ., standing at the close of the Johannean Gospel! The entire historical further development of the church rests in truth upon the faith which has not seen. Comp. 1Pe 1:8 .

[270] See Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 374.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Ver. 28. My Lord and my God ] This is true faith indeed, that individuates God, and appropriates him to itself. a Were it not for this possessive “mine,” the devil might say the creed to as good purpose as we. He believes there is a God and a Christ; but that which torments him is, he can say “my” to never an article of the faith.

a . Chrysost.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

28. ] The Socinian view, that these words, . . , are merely an exclamation , is refuted (1) By the fact that no such exclamations were in use among the Jews. (2) By the . (3) By the impossibility of referring to another than Jesus: see Joh 20:13 . (4) By the N.T. usage of expressing the vocative by the nom. with an article. (5) By the utter psychological absurdity of such a supposition: that one just convinced of the presence of Him whom he deeply loved, should, instead of addressing Him, break out into an irrelevant cry. (6) By the further absurdity of supposing that if such were the case, the Apostle John, who of all the sacred writers most constantly keeps in mind the object for which he is writing, should have recorded any thing so beside that object . (7) By the intimate conjunction of see below. Dismissing it therefore, we observe that this is the highest confession of faith which has yet been made; and that it shews that (though not yet fully ) the meaning of the previous confessions of His being ‘ the Son of God ’ was understood. Thus John, in the very close of his Gospel (see on Joh 20:30-31 ) iterates the testimony with which he began it to the Godhead of the Word who became flesh: and by this closing confession, shews how the testimony of Jesus to Himself had gradually deepened and exalted the Apostles’ conviction, from the time when they knew Him only as (ch. Joh 1:46 ), till now when He is acknowledged as their LORD and their GOD.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Joh 20:28 . Grotius, following Tertullian, Ambrose, Cyril and others, is of opinion that Thomas availed himself of the offered test: surely it is psychologically more probable that the test he had insisted on as alone sufficient is now repudiated, and that he at once exclaims, . His faith returns with a rebound and utters itself in a confession in which the gospel culminates. The words are not a mere exclamation of surprise. That is forbidden by ; they mean “Thou art my Lord and my God”. The repeated pronoun lends emphasis. In Pliny’s letter to Trajan (112 A.D.) he describes the Christians as singing hymns to Christ as God. Our Lord does not reject Thomas’ confession; but (Joh 20:29 ) reminds him that there is a higher faith than that which springs from visual evidence: . Jesus would have been better pleased with a faith which did not require the evidence of sense: a faith founded on the perception that God was in Christ, and therefore He could not die; a faith in His Messiahship which argued that He must live to carry on the work of His Kingdom. The saying is cited as another instance of the care with which the various origins and kinds of faith are distinguished in this gospel.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

My Lord and my God. First testimony to the Deity of the risen Lord. Possibly Thomas was using the words of Psa 86:15, which in the Septuagint read Kurie ho Theos, and claiming forgiveness for his unbelief on the ground of Exo 34:6, to which this verse of the Psalm refers.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

28.] The Socinian view, that these words, . . , are merely an exclamation, is refuted-(1) By the fact that no such exclamations were in use among the Jews. (2) By the . (3) By the impossibility of referring to another than Jesus: see Joh 20:13. (4) By the N.T. usage of expressing the vocative by the nom. with an article. (5) By the utter psychological absurdity of such a supposition: that one just convinced of the presence of Him whom he deeply loved, should, instead of addressing Him, break out into an irrelevant cry. (6) By the further absurdity of supposing that if such were the case, the Apostle John, who of all the sacred writers most constantly keeps in mind the object for which he is writing, should have recorded any thing so beside that object. (7) By the intimate conjunction of -see below. Dismissing it therefore, we observe that this is the highest confession of faith which has yet been made;-and that it shews that (though not yet fully) the meaning of the previous confessions of His being the Son of God was understood. Thus John, in the very close of his Gospel (see on Joh 20:30-31) iterates the testimony with which he began it-to the Godhead of the Word who became flesh: and by this closing confession, shews how the testimony of Jesus to Himself had gradually deepened and exalted the Apostles conviction, from the time when they knew Him only as (ch. Joh 1:46), till now when He is acknowledged as their LORD and their GOD.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Joh 20:28. , unto Him) Therefore it was Jesus whom he called Lord and God, and that too, his Lord and his God: which is in consonance with the language which is recorded in Joh 20:17 : nor do these words form a mere exclamation. The disciples had said, , the Lord, Joh 20:25 : now Thomas, being recalled to faith, not merely acknowledges Jesus to be Lord, as previously he had himself acknowledged, and that He was risen again, as his fellow-disciples were affirming; but even confesses His Godhead in a higher sense than any one had yet confessed. Moreover, the language is abrupt through the suddenness of the feeling excited in him, in this sense, My Lord and my God, I believe and acknowledge that Thou art my Lord and my God: and the absolute appellation has the force of an enunciation. A similar Vocative occurs twice in Joh 20:16, also in Hos 2:23, I will say, thou, my people, and they shall say, Thou, my God. Artemonius in Part i. ch. 24, with which comp. the pref. p. 20 and p. d. 2, brings forward a new explanation, whereby Thomas is made to call Jesus Lord, and the Father who exists in Him inseparably, God: but in that case Thomas would not have addressed both titles unto Him (); but would have been addressing the one to Jesus, the other to the Father, by a sudden apostrophe, [When the language is suddenly turned to another person present or absent, differently from what was the intention of the speaker at the beginning. Append.] which by no means accords with the admiring astonishment of Thomas. If this had been the intention of Thomas, John would not have added, , unto Him. Thomas had not before expressly rejected faith in God the Father, but he had, in the case of Christ: therefore now it is not in the Father that he declares expressly his believing again, but in Christ. [This confession moreover is approved of in the following verse.-V. g.]

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Joh 20:28

Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.-Thomas was not so hard of belief as he had thought. When he saw Jesus he believed without thrusting in his fingers or his hand and exclaimed, “My Lord and my God. The evidence came, and his conclusion was that he was both Ruler and God.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

My Lord and My God

The deity of Jesus Christ is declared in Scripture:

(1) In the intimations and explicit predictions of the O.T.

(a) The theophanies intimate the appearance of God in human form, and His ministry thus to man Gen 16:7-13; Gen 18:2-23 especially; Gen 18:17; Gen 32:28 with; Hos 12:3-5; Exo 3:2-14. (b) The Messiah is expressly declared to be the Son of God Psa 2:2-9 and God; Psa 45:6; Psa 45:7; Heb 1:8; Heb 1:9; Psa 110:1; Mat 22:44; Act 2:34; Heb 1:13; Psa 110:4; Heb 5:6; Heb 6:20; Heb 7:17-21; Zec 6:13. (c) His virgin birth was foretold as the means through which God could be “Immanuel,” God with us; Isa 7:13; Isa 7:14; Mat 1:22; Mat 1:23 (d) The Messiah is expressly invested with the divine names Isa 9:6; Isa 9:7 (e) In a prophecy of His death He is called Jehovah’s “fellow”; Zec 13:7; Mat 26:31. (f) His eternal being is declared; Mic 5:2; Mat 2:6; Joh 7:42.

(2) Christ Himself affirmed His deity.

(a) He applied to Himself the Jehovistic I AM. (The pronoun “he” is not in the Greek; cf Joh 8:24; Joh 8:56-58. The Jews correctly understood this to be our Lord’s claim to full deity. Joh 8:59.

See also, Joh 10:33; Joh 18:4-6 where, also, “he” is not in the original.) (b) He claimed to be the Adonai of the O.T. Mat 22:42-45. (See Scofield “Gen 15:2”). (c) He asserted His identity with the Father; Mat 28:19; Mar 14:62; Joh 10:30, that the Jews so understood Him is shown by; Joh 10:31; Joh 10:32; Joh 14:8; Joh 14:9; Joh 17:5. (d) He exercised the chief prerogative of God; Mar 2:5-7; Luk 7:48-50. (e) He asserted omnipresence; Mat 18:20; Joh 3:13 omniscience, Joh 11:11-14, when Jesus was fifty miles away; Mar 11:6-8, omnipotence; Mat 28:18; Luk 7:14; Joh 5:21-23; Joh 6:19, mastery over nature, and creative power; Luk 9:16; Luk 9:17; Joh 2:9; Joh 10:28. (f) He received and approved human worship,; Mat 14:33; Mat 28:9; Joh 20:28; Joh 20:29.

(3) The N.T. writers ascribe divine titles to Christ: Joh 1:1; Joh 20:28; Act 20:28; Rom 1:4; Rom 9:5; 2Th 1:12; 1Ti 3:16; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:8; 1Jn 5:20.

(4) The N.T. writers ascribe divine perfections and attributes to Christ (e.g.) Mat 11:28; Mat 18:20; Mat 28:20; Joh 1:2; Joh 2:23-25; Joh 3:13; Joh 5:17; Joh 21:17; Heb 1:3; Heb 1:11; Heb 1:12; Heb 13:8; Rev 1:8; Rev 1:17; Rev 1:18; Rev 2:23; Rev 11:17; Rev 22:13.

(5) The N.T. writers ascribe divine works to Christ Joh 1:3; Joh 1:10; Col 1:16; Col 1:17; Heb 1:3.

(6) The N.T. writers teach that supreme worship should be paid to Christ Act 7:59; Act 7:60; 1Co 1:2; 2Co 13:14; Php 2:9; Php 2:10; Heb 1:6; Rev 1:5; Rev 1:6; Rev 5:12; Rev 5:13.

(7) The holiness and resurrection of Christ prove His deity Joh 8:46; Rom 1:4.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

My Lord and My God

Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.Joh 20:28.

It was a strange confession this, to be addressed by a pious Jew, who knew the meaning of his faith, to the man Christ Jesus, with whom as man he had companied, with whom he had eaten and drunk, whom he had heard speak in human words through human lips. The Jew believed in a God who had created men, who worked through them and ruled them, who was conversant with all their ways, who spoke to them and had spoken through them. But it was a God who was more immeasurably distant than imagination could bridge, whose ways were higher than mens ways, and His thoughts than mens thoughts, as high as the heaven is from the earth. He had spoken through men, but it is in that very consciousness of the prophets that the distance between God and man becomes most significant. It emphasizes just where man is highest; for in proportion to mans goodness does he become conscious of his own sinfulness in the presence of the high and holy God. Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hoststhat had been the cry of Isaiah. Ah, Lord God! behold I cannot speak: for I am a childthat had been the confession of Jeremiahs weakness. There was not one of these holy men of God who, if we had proposed to offer him the sort of reverence that is due to God, would have hesitated for a moment to rebuke it in the language of St. Peter, Stand up; for I myself also am a man. The last of the prophets, he who is called greater than the prophets, is conspicuous for this self-effacement in the presence of God, though in his case he took off the glory of his prophetic crown to cast it at the feet of Christ. Truly a strange confession this, to see one who knew the meaning of his belief in the one and only unapproachable God, and hear him speak to One who was truly Son of Man, truly Jesus of Nazareth, in the words My Lord and my God.

1. The text forms the climax of the Fourth Gospel. It is St Johns answer to the question, Who then is this? That question was asked by the people when Christ stayed the storm on the Sea of Galilee. They were astonished without measure, we are told, and said one to another, Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?

Four answers have been given to that question.

(1) First there is the answer which the people themselves gave. Is not this the carpenters son? they said. He was one of themselves. He had been born in Bethlehem; He had followed His fathers trade; He had lived amongst them, and they believed that they knew Him. They knew Him and all His kindred: Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? He simply made an addition of one to the population of the town of Nazareth.

And this answer is given still. In our day there is scarcely a more popular answer than this. Jesus is a man; He makes an addition of one to the population of the world. He is a man, it is added, of supreme ability, originality, and earnestness. He is a man of most exceptional goodness. Those who make this answer have a little difficulty in agreeing as to just how good He was. Some go so far as to say that He seems to have been sinless, or at any rate that nothing sinful is reported of Him. But most will not go so far as that. They cannot believe that any man whose father and mother we know could be sinless.

In the shop of Nazareth

Pungent cedar haunts the breath.

Tis a low Eastern room,

Windowless, touched with gloom.

Workmans bench and simple tools

Line the walls. Chests and stools,

Yoke of ox, and shaft of plow,

Finished by the Carpenter,

Lie about the pavement now.

In the room the Craftsman stands,

Stands and reaches out His hands.

Let the shadows veil His face

If you must, and dimly trace

His workmans tunic, girt with bands

At His waist. But His hands

Let the light play on them;

Marks of toil lay on them.

Paint with passion and with care

Every old scar showing there

Where a tool slipped and hurt;

Show each callous; be alert

For each deep line of toil.

Show the soil

Of the pitch; and the strength

Grip of helve gives at length.

When night comes, and I turn

From my shop where I earn

Daily bread, let me see

Those hard handsknow that He

Shared my lot, every bit;

Was a man, every whit.

Could I fear such a hand

Stretched toward me? Misunderstand

Or mistrust? Doubt that He

Meets me in full sympathy?

Carpenter! hard like Thine

Is this handthis of mine:

I reach out, gripping Thee,

Son of man, close to me,

Close and fast, fearlessly.

(2) The second answer is made by God. This is my beloved Son. The people of Nazareth claimed Him as theirs. He is one of us, they said. Gods answer is, He is not yours, He is Mine. The time may come when He will be yours also; He is not yours yet. He will be yours when you know that He is not simply an addition of one to the population of Nazareth; He will be yours when you know that He is not merely a man, but the Son of man. Meanwhile He is Mine; He is the Son of God. This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

This answer is not so popular in our day. It is not so comprehensive; it is said to be not so comforting. The great merit, we are told, of regarding Jesus as simply one of us is that we can then be sure of His sympathy. But is it enough to be sure of His sympathy? Must we not also be sure of His power? It is one thing to know that He is willing; is He also able to help us in every time of need? He who is the beloved Son of God has all the sympathy for us that the kindest-hearted man could have; and, much more than that, He is able to succour them that are tempted.

When our Lord Jesus Christ became Man, He identified Himself with humanity, in all its weakness, in all its sorrow, and (in a figure) in all its sin. An unflagging outpouring of sympathy, an untiring energy of benevolence, a continuous oblation of self-sacrificethat was the life of the Son of Man upon earth. Many a man has borne his poverty more bravely because Jesus Himself was poor; again and again it has helped men in the furnace of temptation to think that

He knows what sore temptations mean,

For He has felt the same.

And the mourner in dark and lonely hours has found comfort in the remembrance that Jesus wept at a human grave, and knows all the bitter longings of his soul.1 [Note: S. C. Lowry, Lent Sermons on the Passion, 55.] His question still, to every sufferer who needs relief, to every sinner who needs pardon, is, Believest thou that I am able to do this? And the reply still is, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

(3) The third answer is again the answer of the peopleThis is indeed the Saviour of the world. It was the answer given by those Samaritans who had discovered for themselves that Jesus could both sympathize and deliver. It was the answer of those who had had personal experience of His saving grace and power. Now we believe, they said to the woman of Samaria, not because of thy speaking: for we have heard for ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world. They had taken the answer of the inhabitants of Nazareth and the answer of God the Father and had put them together. He was both the carpenter and Gods Son.

And this is the final answer. There is no possibility of going beyond it. The answer of the inhabitants of Nazareth is shortsighted and very partial. Gods answer is partial also, since it has to wait our response before it can be made complete. But it is not short-sighted. It has within it the promise, as it has the potency, of the salvation of the world. It is Gods own expression of the momentous fact of history: God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son. It only waits for that fact to have its fulfilmentthat whosoever believeth on him may not perish but have everlasting life. The answer of the people of Samaria is complete and it is final. All that has yet to be done is to have its contents declared and appropriated. What does Saviour involve? And how is the Saviour of the world to be recognised as mine?

(4) Thomas declared its contents. The Saviour of the world is both Lord and God. He is Lord, for He is a man. The inhabitants of Nazareth knew that. He is also the supreme man. They did not know that; and when He claimed it they took Him to the brow of their hill to cast Him down headlong. Thomas had discovered that Jesus is Son of man, the representative Man, the Man to whom every man owes obedience. But He is also God. The people of Nazareth did not know that He was God: but God the Father knewThis is my beloved Son. That also was contained in the title which the Samaritans gave Himthe Saviour of the worldthough they did not bring it out, and probably were not aware of it. Thomas brought it out, knowing as he did that no man, if he is only man, can save his brother or give to God a ransom for him.

But Thomas not only declared the contents of the Samaritans confession, he appropriated them. He said, My Lord and my God; from which we see that he was led along a path of his own, through his own personal experience, to this appropriation.

2. Now this is the confession to which the Fourth Gospel has been leading up. St. John began with the statement that the Word was God. He showed at once that he identified the Word with Jesus of Nazareth, for he said that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Then he proceeded with the rest of the life of Jesus, selecting his incidents in order to show that he was right in identifying Jesus with the Word. He came quite early to the people of Samaria, who said, This is the Saviour of the world. But that was not definite enough; it was not individual enough. He proceeded with the life, recording its wonderful words and wonderful works, till he came to the death and the resurrection of Jesus. He reached his climax and conclusion in the confession of Thomas, My Lord and my God. Then he brought his Gospel to an end with that frank expression of the purpose of itThese are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name.

3. Is it not a remarkable thing that this confession was made by Thomas? We speak of Thomas as the doubter. Is it not astonishing that the doubting Thomas should have been he that rose to that great height of faith, and was able to say My Lord and my God? It may be that we are not so much astonished at it as our fathers were. Tennyson has taught us to believe that doubt may not be undesirable. At least he has taught us to repeat comfortably his words

There is more faith in honest doubt,

Believe me, than in half the creeds.

But even to us it is surely a surprise to find that that man whom we have looked upon as most reluctant of all the Apostles to make the venture of faith, makes at last a venture which must, we think, have startled the rest of the Apostles as they heard it, calling this Jesus with whom they had companied all these days not only Lord but also God. But let us see if Thomas was the common doubter we have taken him for. We know very little of his history. Almost all we know from the Gospels is contained in four sayings.

(1) The first saying was uttered on the occasion of the death of Lazarus. Jesus and His disciples had left Juda for fear of the Jews when word reached them in their seclusion that Lazarus was dead. Jesus announced His intention of returning to the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. The disciples remonstrated. The Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again? When Jesus persisted, Let us also go, said Thomas, that we may die with him. These are not the words of a vulgar doubter. They are the words of a man who counts the cost. If he errs in counting the cost too deliberately, at any rate he falls into fewer mistakes than the impulsive Peter. And it is the more creditable to him that, counting the cost so carefully, he makes so brave a decision as this.

(2) The second saying is spoken in the Upper Room. Jesus was trying to prepare the disciples for the impending separation. He was going away. They knew where He was going, did they not? Whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. But they did not know; and it was Thomas who uttered their ignorance: Lord, we know not whither thou goest: and how can we know the way? There is neither doubt nor conspicuous caution in the words; there is simply the mind of the practical man who is willing to go where he has to go but would like to see the way.

(3) It is from the third saying that Thomas has obtained the name of doubter. Jesus had risen from the dead, but Thomas could not believe it. No more could the rest believe it until they had evidence before them. Thomas happened to be absent when they had it, and he said, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe. With such an expression of determined disbelief to his credit, it is not to be wondered at that Thomas has received the name of doubting Thomas. Yet these are scarcely the words of a man who doubts habitually. They are rather the determination of a cautious and practical man to make sure that he has evidence enough to go upon. And God never refuses any man sufficient evidence. A few days afterwards Jesus offered Thomas the very evidence that he demanded. Thomas was wrong in relying so entirely on the evidence of the senses, and he was rebuked for that. Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed. Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. But it is to the glory of Thomas that when he did obtain sufficient evidence he believed with all his heart. As soon as he understood, he trusted; as soon as he knew, he loved. He needed no more than the evidence of the Resurrection to prove the Divinity. He made the great leap of faith and threw himself personally into the arms of a personal SaviourMy Lord and my God.

(4) My Lord and my God. This is the fourth saying of Thomas that we know. Thomas the doubter has left his doubt behind. He has outstripped his fellow-disciples. He has outstripped even the impetuous Peter, whose great confession, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, lacks the personal appropriation that marks the difference between insight and faith.

Men have generally passed on Thomas a very severe judgment. The Church, for ages, has branded infidel on his brow. But this judgment is one that is not justified by the facts, and cannot be entertained by us. At all times and even to this day people are quite ready to scatter such epithets about with an open hand. It is an easy and complacent way of disposing of men. But it is often a shallow enough device. We show thereby but little insight into the nature of men or of God. If we could look into the hearts of those whom we so fling away from us, we should often find deep enough sorrows there, struggles to which we ourselves are strangers, wrestlings for truth and light without receiving it, and yearnings pent up and hidden from the general eye.1 [Note: A. B. Davidson, The Called of God, 322.]

There is not one believer who is not assailed by moments of doubt, of doubt of the existence of God. These doubts are not harmful: on the contrary, they lead to the highest comprehension of God. That God whom I knew became familiar to me, and I no longer believed in Him. A man believes fully in God only when He is revealed anew to him, and He is revealed to man from a new side, when He is sought with a mans whole soul.2 [Note: Tolstoy, Works, xvi. 418.]

They bade me cast the thing away,

They pointed to my hands all bleeding,

They listened not to all my pleading;

The thing I meant I could not say;

I knew that I should rue the day

If once I cast that thing away.

I grasped it firm, and bore the pain;

The thorny husks I stripped and scattered;

If I could reach its heart, what mattered

If other men saw not my gain,

Or even if I should be slain?

I knew the risks; I chose the pain.

O, had I cast that thing away,

I had not found what most I cherish,

A faith without which I should perish,

The faith which, like a kernel, lay

Hid in the husks which on that day

My instinct would not throw away!3 [Note: Helen Hunt Jackson.]

4. How did Thomas reach his great confession? He reached it through the Death and the Resurrection. These are the two events which have occurred between the time when Thomas with the rest of the disciples forsook Him and fled, and the time when he said, My Lord and my God.

(1) He obtained My Lord first. The resurrection of Jesus gave him that directly. For Jesus had claimed the mastery, and to that claim God had now set His seal by raising Him from the dead. It was the simple confession of the Messiahship. His death seemed to show that He had made the claim unwarrantably, but the resurrection proved that He had made it with the approbation of God.

The title Lord as used at the time, had little more significance than the title Sir, as we use it in addressing men to-day. But as it fell from the lips of this man, I think I am right in saying that it came with a full and rich and spacious meaning. I do not think for a moment you can differ from me when I say that when Thomas on that occasion said, My Lord, in that word he recognized the sovereignty of Christ over his own life, and did by that word yield himself in willing submission to that sovereignty.1 [Note: G. Campbell Morgan.]

(2) But Lord alone may be useless. Ye call me Master and Lord, said Jesus, but ye do not the things which I say. And again, He warned them that many would say to Him Lord, Lord, to whom He would have to make the reply that He never knew them. To My Lord it is necessary to add My God.

Thomas obtained My Lord from Jesus resurrection. He found My God in His death and resurrection combined. We are apt to think that he must have found My God in the power which Jesus possessed or in the authority which He wielded; in His miracles or in His teaching. But His life and work could do no more than show that Jesus might be God. What proved Him to be God indeed was His suffering and death followed by His resurrection. For now it was evident that He need not have suffered and need not have died. It was evident that He had suffered and died purely out of love. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. It needs the love of God to lay down ones life for ones enemies. God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. God is love, and the Man who could not save Himself as He hung upon the cross could be nothing less than God.

If the conclusion that Jesus was God was based merely upon the fact of resurrection, I declare that it was not justified. Resurrection did not demonstrate deity. The Hebrew Scriptures told of resurrection of certain men from the dead. Put these out of mind if you can. Thomas had seen three dead ones come to life during the ministry of Jesus. He had seen Him raise the child of Jairus; he had seen the son of the widow of Nain given back to his mother after he had been laid upon the bier; and he had seen the raising of Lazarus, but he did not stand in the presence of Lazarus and say, My Lord and my God, because Lazarus was alive from the dead. If the confession was merely the result of resurrection, then I declare it was not justified. The fact that Christ was risen from among the dead is not enough to base the doctrine of His deity upon. But, as a sequence to all that had preceded it, I claim that he was justified. In that hour when Thomas became convinced that the One he had seen dead was alive from among the dead, there came back again to him with gathered force, focused into one clear bright hour of illumination, all the facts in the life and ministry that had preceded that resurrection.1 [Note: G. Campbell Morgan.]

Faith is not belief in fact, demonstration, or promise; it is sensibility to the due influence of the fact, something that enables us to act upon the fact, the susceptibility to all the strength that is in the fact, so that we are controlled by it. Nobody can properly define this. All we can say is that it comes by the grace of God, and that failure to see the truth is not so lamentable as failure to be moved by it.2 [Note: Mark Rutherford.]

My Lord and My God

Literature

Aitken (W. H. M. H.), What is Your Life? 148.

Bellett (J. C.), in Sermons for the People, i. 95.

Benson (R. M.), The Final Passover, iv. 536.

Bernard (J. H.), From Faith to Faith, 261.

Buckland (A. R.), Words of Help, 105.

Burrows (H. W.), Parochial Sermons, iii. 122.

Davidson (A. B.), The Called of God, 319.

Davies (T.), Sermons, ii. 220.

Hodge (C.), Princeton Sermons, 370.

Hutchings (W. H.), Sermon Sketches, ii. 134.

Jeffrey (J.), The Personal Ministry of the Son of Man, 276.

Lawlor (H. J.), Thoughts on Belief and Life, 84.

Little (J. A. S.), Salt and Peace, 162s.

Manning (H. E.), Sermons on Ecclesiastical Subjects, i. 197.

Mortimer (A. G.), Jesus and the Resurrection, 184.

Pearse (M. G.), The Gentleness of Jesus, 77.

Smith (J.), Short Studies, 236.

Speer (R. E.), The Master of the Heart, 56.

Spurgeon (C. H.), Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, xxx. (1884) No. 205.

Stanford (C), From Calvary to Olivet, 157.

Telford (J.), The Story of the Upper Room, 245.

Webb (A. B.), in Sermons for the People, i. 80.

Christian World Pulpit, lvii. 257 (Gore); lxxvii. 241 (Morgan).

Church Pulpit Year Book, vii. (1910) 81.

Keswick Week, 1905, p. 95 (Pierson).

Fuente: The Great Texts of the Bible

My Lord: The disbelief of the apostle is the means of furnishing us with a full and satisfactory demonstration of the resurrection of our Lord. Throughout the divine dispensations every doctrine and ever important truth is gradually revealed; and here we have a conspicuous instance of the progressive system. An angel first declares the glorious event; the empty sepulchre confirms the women’s report. Christ’s appearance to Mary Magdalene shewed that he was alive; that to the disciples at Emmaus proved that it was at the least the spirit of Christ; that to the eleven shewed the reality of his body; and the conviction given to Thomas proved it the self-same body that had been crucified. Incredulity itself is satisfied; and the convinced apostle exclaims, in the joy of his heart, “My Lord and my God!” Joh 20:16, Joh 20:31, Joh 5:23, Joh 9:35-38, Psa 45:6, Psa 45:11, Psa 102:24-28, Psa 118:24-28, Isa 7:14, Isa 9:6, Isa 25:9, Isa 40:9-11, Jer 23:5, Jer 23:6, Mal 3:1, Mat 14:33, Luk 24:52, Act 7:59, Act 7:60, 1Ti 3:16, Rev 5:9-14

Reciprocal: Jos 5:14 – my lord Psa 8:1 – our Psa 16:2 – thou hast Psa 35:23 – my God Psa 97:10 – preserveth Dan 10:16 – my Lord Hos 9:17 – My God Mat 2:2 – worship Mat 22:42 – What Mat 22:44 – my Lord Mat 28:9 – worshipped Luk 1:43 – my Luk 23:42 – Lord Joh 1:1 – the Word was Joh 1:34 – this Joh 1:49 – thou Joh 6:69 – we believe Joh 9:38 – Lord Joh 10:36 – I am Joh 11:27 – Yea Joh 21:2 – Thomas Joh 21:7 – It is Act 9:20 – that Rom 1:3 – his Son Rom 4:19 – being 2Co 1:19 – the Son Phi 2:6 – thought Phi 2:11 – is Lord Phi 3:8 – my Heb 1:8 – O God Heb 7:14 – Our Lord 1Jo 5:20 – This is

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

After all the demand that Thomas had made to the other disciples, there is no indication that he took the advantage that Jesus offered him. Instead, the response he made to the invitation was only to answer Jesus, and make the full confession of faith, My Lord and my God.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

The Apologists Bible Commentary

John 20

28Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

C o m m e n t a r yThe confession of Thomas, coming as it does at the climax of John’s Gospel, is perhaps the clearest affirmation of Christ’s deity in the Bible. It is clear, despite various theories to the contrary (see “Other views Considered,” below), that Thomas was speaking directly to Jesus. The phrase rendered “answered and said to him” is a rather common construction in the New Testament, and always precedes a direct address to the person referred to (“him,” in this case, who can only be Jesus). This verse occurs in the middle of a conversation between Thomas and Jesus, and suggestions that Thomas was addressing the Father, or crying out in surprise are not credible. For a devout Jew in the first Century to address someone as “my God” could only mean one thing: The “God” being addressed occupied a unique position in the speaker’s devotion. For a Jew, this could only be YHWH. The phrase “my God” occurs over 135 times in the Bible, and when spoken by a Jew, always refers to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Thomas was disposed to believe in Jesus by his personal attachment to him, as he demonstrated previously by his resolute adherence in impending danger (11:16). Jesus may have felt that the faith of all the disciples was fragile, for he told them explicitly that the raising of Lazarus was designed to give them a solid basis for a continuing faith (11:15). Now, having been challenged to make a personal test of Jesus’ reality, Thomas expressed fullest faith in him. For a Jew to call another human associate “my Lord and my God” would be almost incredible. The Jewish law was strictly monotheistic; so the deification of any man would be regarded as blasphemy (10:33). Thomas, in the light of the Resurrection, applied to Jesus the titles of Lord (kyrios) and God (theos), both of which were titles of deity (EBC ).

G r a m m a t i c a l A n a l y s i sapekriqh QwmaV kai eipen autw,`O kurioV mou kai`o qeoV mou APEKRITH THMAS KAI EIPEN AUTWi, hO KURIOS MOU KAI hO THEOS MOU Answered Thomas and said to him, the Lord of me and the God of me Not exclamation, but address, the vocative case though the form of the nominative, a very common thing in the Koin. Thomas was wholly convinced and did not hesitate to address the Risen Christ as Lord and God. And Jesus accepts the words and praises Thomas for so doing (RWP ) Nominative for vocative Even where the nominative is still formally distinguished from the vocative, there is still a tendency for the nominative to usurp the place of the vocative (a tendency observable already in Homer)….Attic used the nominative (with article) with simple substantives only in addressing inferiors…The NT (in passages translated from a Semitic language) and the LXX do not conform to these limitations, but can even say ho theos, ho patr, etc., in which the arthrous Semitic vocative is being reproduced by the Greek nominative with article….Jn 20:28 (cf., Rev 4:11) (BDF , pp. 81-82). About sixty times in the New Testament a nominative case noun is used to designate the person being addressed. The nominative functions like a vocative….The nominative of address is usually preceded by an article (Young , p. 12). A substantive in the nominative is used in the place of the vocative case. It is used (as is the voc.) in direct address to designate the addressee….The articular use also involves two nuances: address to an inferior and simple substitute for a Semitic noun of address, regardless of whether the addressee is inferior or superior (Wallace , pp. 56 – 57). In Hebrew typically the noun of address will have the article….In the LXX, God [Elohim] is customarily addressed with an articular nom. (Wallace , p. 57 n. 71). The nominative for vocative has exactly the same force and meaning as the vocative. This can be seen in numerous parallel passages in the Gospels, in which the vocative appears in one and the nominative in another (see, for example, Matt 27:46 [thee mou, thee mou] and Mark 15:34 [ho theos mou, ho theos mou]).

O t h e r V i e w s C o n s i d e r e dJehovah’s Witnesses See also: Rev 4:11 A Dialog with MS Stafford, Furuli and John 20:28 by James Stewart The way in which I will respond to Mr. Stafford and Mr. Furuli is built on the foundation of M. J. Harris’ forth chapter in his book Jesus as God . (You can order a copy of Harris’ book here ). You need to have this chapter in order to make sense of the answers to Mr. Stafford and Mr. Furuli. This paper also assumes the reader has read the appropriate sections in Mr. Stafford’s and Mr. Furuli’s books. You need to know the context of the quotes. I will list by number Mr. Stafford’s and Mr. Furuli’s arguments from their books. I will then respond by a reference to M. J. Harris’ chapter that answers that argument or will respond myself if the argument is not addressed by Prof. Harris. Furuli’s Arguments 1. 1. Page 220, In this passage it is not possible to claim that the article has semantic importance, and that Jesus is therefore identical with ho theos in John 1:1, because the article is grammatically requiredBecause the phrase has a possessive pronoun (my), the word theos must be definite, and in Greek it cannot stand without the article. 2. Page 220, note 42, If the words of John 20:28 were directed only to Jesus, is rather strange that the nominative form kurios and not the vocative form kurie was used. 3. Page 221, We cannot know exactly what Thomas meant with his exclamation. 4. Page 221, Those believing in the trinity can hardly argue that Thomas meant that Jesus was the same as ho theos, with whom the Word is said to be in John 1:1, because this would be tantamount to Sabellianism. 5. Page 221, Thus, Thomas’ words do not add anything to our understanding of the word theos when used of Jesus in John 1:1c, 18. Stafford’s Arguments 1. Page 350, The Logos as a god 2. Page 351, it may be that Thomas never intended to call Jesus God at all, but merely directed his exclamation of praise to both Jesus and the Father, the latter being directly responsible for the resurrection of the Lord (compare Ga 1:2; 2Co 4:14; Heb 13:20), which is what Thomas doubted. 3. Page 351, note 116, Unless, as we argue, they were doing so against the backdrop of the OT, which made it quite acceptable to refer to other inferior divine beings who served Jehovah. Again, see the discussion of biblical monotheism in Chapter 2. 4. Page 351, and Thomas’ reply was spoken to him But was it directed to him? 5. Page 352, Quote by Margaret Davies But it is perfectly appropriate for Thomas to respond to Jesus’ resurrection with a confession of faith both in Jesus as his Lord and in God who sent and raised JesusIf we understand Thomas’ confession as an assertion that Jesus is God, this confession in 20.31 becomes an anti-climax. 6. Page 352, Thomas’ words are not recorded with Lord in its typical vocative (direct address) form (KURIE, kyrie); rather, the nominative form (KURIOS, kyrios) is used. 7. Page 353, In commenting on Psalm 35:23, he states, But here God precedes Lord. This is the opposite of John 20:28 8. Page 354, This can be done in a manner patterned after the numerous references to angels as God 9. Page 354, Such a confession, as in the case of Thomas, is qualified not only by the context (Joh 20:17), but also by the whole of Scripture. 10. Page 355, Here Jesus, in the same state Thomas addresses him, says that the Father is his God, again differentiating between the two in terms of theos, as well as acknowledging the Father’s superiority over him, as his GodThomas had no concept of a consubstantial Trinity. Answers to Furuli 1. See Harris pages 110-111, 3. Vocatival, Addressed to Jesus In response Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and My God!’ And pages 121-122, 2. The Meaning and Theological Significance of Thomas’s Cry. First Mr. Furuli says, it is not possible to claim that the article has semantic importance Then he says, There is of course a possibility that it has semantic importance So, is it ‘possible’ or ‘not possible?’ So what, if the article is grammatically required, John wrote this phrase on purpose this way. Like Mr. Furuli states in the next sentence, Because the phrase has a possessive pronoun (my) the word theos must be definite So you would still say ‘the Lord and the God’ whether there is an article or not. The Straw Man that Mr. Furuli builds is when he states that Trinitarians try to make Jesus identical with ho theos of John 1:1. Which creed in the Church made that statement? What Trinitarian was he referring to? I don’t know of any official sources that teach that. 2. See Harris pages 107-108, b. Referring to Jesus: Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord is also my God.’ As can be seen, it is not so strange. 3. This verse is not very hard to understand. The Aid to Bible Understanding on page 885 quotes the Imperial Bible Dictionary approvingly, He (the Hebrew) says again and again my God; but never my Jehovah, for when he says my God, He means Jehovah. See also Rudolf Bultman’s (who does not believe Jesus is Deity) commentary on the Gospel of John, Westminster Press, 1971 pages 694-695 and footnotes, Thomas is so overpowered that the confession springs to his lips, My Lord and My God! (v.28). That confession is wholly appropriate to him who has risen; going far beyond the earlier confession, My Master (v.16), it sees in Jesus God himself. He who has seen me Has seen the Father, Jesus had said in 14.9 (cp. 12.45) Thomas has now seen Jesus in the way that Jesus wills to be seen and ought to be seen. By means of these words HO THEOS MOU, the last confession spoken in the gospel makes it clear that Jesus, to whom it refers, is the Logos who has now returned to the place where he was before the Incarnation, and who is glorified with the glory that he had with the Father before the world was (17.5); he is now recognized as the THEOS that he was from the beginning (1:1). If the man who thinks a supernatural Jesus is a myth can see this, why can’t Mr. Furuli? It is obvious that what is being done by Thomas in John 20:28, is the same thing being done in Rev. 4:11 by the twenty-four elders, You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power, This passage is pretty straight forward. Here is a list of scriptures: Psalms 34:23, 43:5, 63:1; Jer. 38:18; Zech. 13:9; Matt. 4:7, 10, 22:37, 27:46; Mk. 5:34,12:29; Lk. 1:78, 4:8, 12; Jn. 8:54, 20:17, 20:28; Acts 2:39; Ro. 1:8; 1Cor. 1:4, 6:11; 2Cor. 12:21; Php. 1:3; 1Thess. 2:2, 3:9; 2Thess. 1:11; Phm. 1:4; Heb. 1:9; Rev. 3:12, 4:11, 5:10, 7:3, 12:10, 19:1, 19:5, 21:3. Take a look at these scriptures and notice similar phrases such as- my God, your God, our God, and their God. Notice the continuity in meaning. The word God is used in various contexts- worship, affirmation, confession, and teaching. There are no quantitative levels of deity in any of these passages. Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that THEOS in Jn 20:28 means god but in a lesser sense. This is an equivocation on the word god based on the presupposition that god when applied to the Father means God and when applied to the son means god. There is no lexical evidence or contextual markers for this change. When he says we can’t know exactly, is he being philosophical as in we are finite? Or is he being historical such as we would have to talk to John to know for sure? And since we, can’t know exactly, why is it that the Trinitarian interpretation is ruled out? Why not the Arian? Could it be because he is Arian? 4. Again, Mr. Furuli builds a straw man. Does he quote a creed or an official Trinitarian? NO! The key point is that while John 1:1 would be Sabellianism had THEOS been articular (it being an equative phrase), Jn 20:28 emphatically is not. There is no equative verb here. Thomas is calling Jesus HIS God! 5. Mr. Furuli is begging the question here. Thomas’ words do add to our understanding of the word THEOS when used of Jesus in Jn 1:1 and 18. If one is a monotheist, this is an incredible confession. This would identify Jesus the One God. If you are a polytheist, it’s no big deal. Jesus is just one of the gods just like in Greek mythology. Answers to Stafford 1. This is a poor title for this section. There is no ‘a god’ in this passage. Regarding the ‘a god’ supposition, I’d be sure to mention that there are 135 occurrences of ‘my God’ in the Bible. When spoken by a Jew, it always refers to Yahweh (unless Jn 20:28 is an exception). Further, calling ‘a god’ MY God would break the first commandment (Ex 20:3). For how could a good 2nd temple Jew call another being His God, without placing that god before Yahweh? MOU is possessive – thus, Thomas is making a very personal statement – my OWN God! It simply is not credible that he could say this of any God but Yahwah. 2. It’s only a possibility if you are a deconstructionist. See Harris pages 106 -111. The scriptures that Mr. Stafford references are only a smoke screen. There is no comparison at all. None of those verses has Paul speaking to the Father or Jesus and directing it to the other. 3. I must refer to Sam Shamoun’s article on the Trinity Defended web-site called ‘Biblical Monotheism.’ It is a refutation of Mr. Stafford’s chapter ‘Understanding Biblical Monotheism.’ He demonstrates that Mr. Stafford’s ‘Biblical Monotheism’= Henotheism which is a sub-category of polytheism. 4. Again, I refer to Harris pages 106-111. Is there one example from Biblical or extra-Biblical of someone directing worship to Jehovah by speaking to another. Does Mr. Stafford speak worship to his brother/sister and directed it to Jehovah? APEDRITHEEIPEN AUTW(i) is a common idiom in the New Testament. This idiom always precedes a statement directed to the referent of the dative AUTOS. There is no lexical support in any of the standard references (BAGD, M&M, and Louw & Nida) for a ‘relative address with any of the words in question. There is no grammatical support in any of the standard grammars for a ‘relative address’ (spoken to another). 5. See Harris c. The Meaning of THEOS pages 124-127 6. See Harris pages 107-108 b. Referring to Jesus: Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord is also my God.’ 7. See Harris pages 120-121 e. Experimental. At this point, I want to give a quote by A.T. Robertson in his grammar page 466 that responds to Abbott in this context, In Rev. 4:11 we have also the vocative case in HO KURIOS KAI HO THEOS. In Jo. 20:28 Thomas addresses Jesus as HO KURIOS MOU KAI HO THEOS MOU, the vocative like those above. Yet, strange to say, Winer calls this exclamation rather than address, apparently to avoid the conclusion that Thomas was satisfied as to the deity of Jesus by his appearance to him after the resurrection. Dr. E.A. Abbott follows suit also in an extended argument to show that KURIE HO THEOS is the LXX way of addressing God, not HO KURIOS KAI HO THEOS. But after he had written he appends a note to p. 95 to the effect that this is not quite satisfactory. For xiii 13, PHONEITE ME HO DIDASKALOS KAI HO KURIOS, and Rev. 4:11 AXIOS EI HO KURIOS KAI HO THEOS HEMON, ought to have been mentioned above. This is a manly retraction, and he adds: John may have used it here exceptionally. Leave out exceptionally and the conclusion is just. If Thomas used Aramaic he certainly used the article. It is no more exceptional in Jo. 20:28 than in Rev. 4:11. 8. Again I reference Sam Shamoun’s article. 9. John 20:17 is a great passage demonstrating that My God is this passage means the same semantic meaning as Jn 20:28. See Answers to Furuli note 3. If Jesus note God in Jn 20:28, then neither is the Father in 20:17! 10. A. Harnack (History of Dogma, 4:41-42) has an interesting evaluation of Arius that somewhat applies here: A son who is no son, a Logos who is no logos, a monotheism which nevertheless does not exclude polytheism, two or three ousias which are to be revered, while yet only one of them is really distinct from the creatures, and indefinable being who first becomes God by becoming man and who is yet neither God nor man, and so on. In every single point we have apparent clearness while all is hollow and formal, a boyish enthusiasm for playing with husks and shells, and a childish self-satisfaction in the working out of empty syllogisms. Whether Thomas had a concept of the Trinity or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Thomas (a true monotheistic Hebrew not a biblical monotheistic polytheist) worshiped Jesus as his God.

Fuente: The Apologists Bible Commentary

Joh 20:28. Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. He passes at once from the depths of his despondency and hesitation to the most exalted faith. The words are certainly addressed to Jesus; and it is unnecessary to combat the position that they are only an expression of the apostles thankfulness to God for what he has seen. They are a triumphant confession of his faith, not simply in the Resurrection, but in Him whom he sees before him in all the Divinity both of His Person and of His work. Yet we are not to imagine that only now for the first time did such thoughts enter his mind. They had been long vaguely entertained, long feebly cherished. Nor can we doubt that they had been gaining strength, when they were suddenly dashed by that death upon the cross with which it seemed impossible to reconcile them. Then came the tidings of the Resurrection, even in themselves most startling, but to Thomas (we may well suppose) more startling than to any of the other apostles. Were they true? He saw in an instant how incalculable would be the consequences. It was this very perception of the greatness of the tidings that led him to reject them. His state of mind had been the same as in chap. Joh 11:16, where, when Jesus hinted at giving life, he went rather to the opposite extreme, and thought of a death that would involve not only Lazarus but them all. Thus also now. He hears that Jesus is risen, and his first impulse is to say, It cannot be: thick darkness cannot pass at once into such glorious light; the despair which is justified by what has happened cannot at once be transformed into inextinguishable confidence and hope. This depth of feeling prepared him for the completeness of the revulsion that now took place. For a week he had been able to meditate on all that he had both seen and heard. We cannot doubt that during that time the sayings of his Lord about His resurrection, as well as His death, would all return to his memory. He would see that what was said to have happened had been foretold; after all it was not to be rejected as impossible. He would think with himself what kind or amount of proof could convince him that the fact was true; and he would be unable to fall upon any harder proof than that which his incredulity had suggested in the moment of its first strength. But, if that proof can be given, then how powerfully would be feel the injustice which by his doubting he had done his Master! With what force would intimations, once dark but now bright in the light of the supposed Resurrection, come home to him! His very highest expectations would seem to him to have been warranted, and more than warranted, by the facts. We need not wonder that, having passed through a week so rich in training power, Thomas, when he did behold the Risen Lord, should have leaped at once from his former unbelief to faith in its highest stage, or that he should have exclaimed to Jesus, My Lord and my God. It may even be doubted if, before this confession was made, he found it necessary to put his finger into the print of the nails or his hand into the wounded side. It was enough to see (Joh 20:29).

One other remark may be made. Those who study the structure of the Fourth Gospel will hardly fail to trace in the incident thus placed at the close of its narrative the tendency of the Evangelist to return upon his own early steps. He had begun with the Word who was God; he closes with this highest truth accepted and ratified by those to whom the revelation was given. The last witness borne by one of them in the body of the Gospel narrative is, My Lord and my God!

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

These words may be considered two ways.

1. As an abrupt speech, importing a vehement admiration of Christ’s mercy towards him, and of his own stupidity and dullness to believe.

Learn hence, that the convincing condescension of Christ turns unbelief into a rapture of holy admiration and humble adoration.

2. This expression of Thomas, My Lord and my God, contain a short, but absolute, confession of faith. Thomas rightly collects from this resurrection, that he was Lord, God blessed for evermore, the true Messias, the expected Redeemer, and accordingly with an explicit faith he now professes his interest in him, saying, My Lord and my God.

Yet note, that this resurrection could not make him God, and render him then the object of divine worship, if he had been only a creature before.

And farther observe, that Christ doth not reprove Thomas for owning him as God, which shows that Thomas did not mistake in owning the divinity of Christ.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Vv. 28, 29. Thomas answered and said to him, My Lord and my God! 29. Jesus says to him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed. Blessed are they who, without having seen, have believed.

What produces so profound an impression upon Thomas is not only the reality of the resurrection, which he touches with his hands, it is also the omniscience of the Lord, which the latter proves by repeating to him, just as they were, the words which he thought he had uttered in His absence. This scene recalls that of Nathanael (ch. 1). Just as in the case of the latter, the light shines suddenly, with an irresistible brightness, even into the depths of the soul of Thomas; and by one of those frequent reactions in the moral life, he rises by a single bound from the lowest degree of faith to the highest, and proclaims the divinity of his Master in a more categorical expression than all those which had ever come forth from the lips of any of his fellow-apostles. The last becomes in a moment the first, and the faith of the apostles attains at length, in the person of Thomas, to the whole height of the divine reality formulated in the first words of the Prologue. It is in vain that Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Socinians and others have wished to apply to God, not to Jesus, Thomas’ cry of adoration, by making it either an expression of praise, or an exclamation in honor of God. It should not be, in that case, , He said to Him; besides, the term my Lord can only refer to Jesus. The monotheism of Thomas is made an objection. But it is precisely because this disciple understands that he bears towards Jesus henceforth a feeling which passes beyond what can be accorded to a creature, that he is forced, even by his monotheism, to place this being in the heart of Deity.

The repetition of the article and that of the pronoun give to these words a peculiar solemnity (Weiss).

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

Verse 28

My Lord and my God. It cannot be doubted that these terms were both applied by Thomas personally to the Savior. The attempts to give some other construction to such expressions are now generally abandoned by those who are unwilling to admit, on any evidence, the inference which flows from them. They find it to be easier to take the ground that the apostles themselves were in error, than to force unnatural constructions upon language so unequivocal as that which they often used.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

Ver. 28.-Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God. This was after he had fully ascertained that it was indeed Christ Himself, who had received these wounds on the cross, and who was now alive again. See Tertullian, de Anima, cap. xxviii.; S. Ambrose, in Ps. xliii. (xliv.); S. Hilary, de Trinit. Lib. iii.; S. Cyril, xii. 58; S. Gregory, Hom. xxvi.

My Lord and my God. That is, Thou art my Lord and my God. Thus showing that He was Very and true God by nature. Thomas here humbly and penitently confesses and condemns his former incredulity, with great profession of faith, hope, penitence, and love. By the word “Lord” he confesses Christ’s human nature, by the word “God” His divine nature. “I,” he would say, “because I believed not that thou wast God, did not believe that Thou hadst risen. But now I both believe that Thou art God, and that by the power of Thy Godhead Thou didst raise Thy Body to life again.” So St. Hilary (Lib. vii. de Trinit.) and S. Ambrose (in Ps. xliii.), who also adds that the word “Lord” signifies that Christ is our Redeemer as having purchased us by His Blood, and thus becoming our Lord by the right of purchase and redemption. By these words, Suarez says that Thomas offered Christ the adoration of Latria. As S. Augustine said, “He saw and touched the man,” &c. (see above on ver. 27). Consequently the fifth cumenical Council (in Constit. Vigilii Pap) anathematise Theodore of Mopsuestia, who maintained that these words were not a confession of Christ’s Godhead, but merely an expression of astonishment. Note the words, “My Lord,” &c. For though Christ is the Lord and God of all, yet He is especially mine, having as the good Shepherd sought me, as a sheep that was lost, and I love and venerate Him in return from my inmost soul, as specially my Lord and my God. Thou, 0 Jesus, art my God and my Lord, because by these Thy wounds, which I have now touched, and know to be most real, Thou hast procured and obtained for me that faith with which I believe that Thou hast really risen, and this hope of obtaining grace and glory through the merit of Thy wounds, and such fervent charity as to love Thee most ardently as my God and Lord, and to offer and devote myself entirely to Thee as Thy servant for ever, so as henceforth to wish to do nothing, but that which pleases, lauds, and glorifies Thee. Would that I could lay open and breathe forth this my heartfelt feeling to the whole world! Would that I could proclaim and set forth to all the world this my faith, hope, and love towards Thee! Thus S. Francis frequently used to say, “My God and my all;” and the Royal Prophet, “What have I in heaven but Thee,” &c., Psa 73:24.

Ver. 29.-Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen Me (that is, touched and thus surely known), thou hast believed. Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed, Because there “faith has greater merit, where human reason does not afford a test,” says S. Gregory. He used the past tense, because many had already believed, but does not exclude the present and the future. They both are, and will be blessed, who believe in Me, without seeing. S. Augustine (in loc.) adds that they who will believe, did already believe in God’s foreknowledge and predestination. But this remark is more subtle and acute than solid.

Hence S. Gregory (Hom. xxvi.), S. Hilary (de Trinit. lib. xii.), and S. Augustine (in loc.), say that Thomas saw one thing and believed another: he saw that Christ had risen, he believed that He was God, and consequently had raised Himself. By touching My human nature which has been raised (Christ would say) thou hast believed My Godhead which lay hid within, and which raised it up. For the resurrection of Christ had confirmed all His teachings, one of which was that He was the Messiah the Son of God, who would die on the cross for the salvation of men, and on the third day rise again. All which Thomas believed. Again, that which comes under our senses, which we see and touch, we can believe on divine authority, but for another formal reason. We see a thing because we behold it with our eyes, but we believe it because God has revealed it, especially if our senses can err, or if the matter involve anything which is not seen, as was the case with the resurrection of Christ, which was already past, for Thomas here doubted and was convinced of Christ’s resurrection.

Thou wilt reply, that S. Augustine says, Tract xl. (on S. John), Faith is believing what thou seest not. I answer, This is true in the sense that the chief material objects of faith are such as cannot be seen. But the formal object of faith, that is to say, divine revelation, is always of such a kind, that is to say invisible. And therefore Thomas, so far as he beheld Christ, did not formally believe it. But because he saw and heard Christ, when raised, assert the same thing, he believed God, who by the mouth of Christ and the Apostles, stated and revealed to him that it was no phantom in the form of Christ (as he had before supposed), but Christ Himself who had really risen and appeared to the Apostles. Just as we say, “Because thou hast seen miracles, because thou hast heard the Gospel preached, therefore thou hast believed.” The word therefore does not signify the reason or the formal cause of belief (for that is only the Divine Revelation), but only the predisposing cause which moves us to believe.

But thirdly, the words can be explained as signifying merely assent, and not properly faith. Just as we believe the things we see and know. So Toletus. Hear S. Gregory: “He touched the man, and confessed Him to be God;” and Theophylact, “He who before was unbelieving, showed himself, after he had touched His side, to be an excellent theologian, in asserting the twofold nature, and the one Person of Christ. For by calling Him Lord he confessed His human nature, and by calling Him God he confessed the divine Nature in one and the same Person.”

Ver. 30.-And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book. Both through His whole life, and specially after His resurrection (say S. Chrysostom and Theophylact). These latter in the presence of the Apostles only, the others before all the people. Besides these signs which I have just recorded, others were wrought to confirm the truth of the resurrection. And these I have omitted (says S. John) for brevity’s sake, and because many of them are recorded by the other evangelists. So S. Thomas, Lyranus, Cajetan, Ribera, Toletus, and others.

S. John seems here to finish his Gospel, as S. Augustine says. The next chapter relates to the mysteries of the Church, and the primacy of S. Peter, to show how rapidly the disciples multiplied, over whom S. Peter was placed as Vicar. Jansenius considers, most improbably, that S. John added some things here, which subsequently occurred to him. But it would seem that the Holy Spirit, and John too, added them for an express purpose, and not merely from memory.

Ver. 31.-But these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ (the long-promised Messiah), the Son of God: and that believing ye might have life (of grace here and glory hereafter) through His name, that is, through the merits and satisfaction of Christ, which are applied to us through the sacraments on our faith and obedience. We must therefore believe-(1.) That He is the Saviour of the world. (2.) The long-expected Messiah. (3.) That He is God the Son of God. (4.) That He will give eternal life to those who believe in, and obey Him. “For,” as S. Gregory says, “He truly believes, who sets forth his belief in his life.”

*It is not the title of Ps. lv. in fact, but of Ps. xxi. — Trans. (Return to the place .)

Check these Ps numbers for typos.

**This is a suppositious work, and is found only in Latin. (Return to the place .)

Fuente: Cornelius Lapide Commentary

Evidently Thomas did not take up Jesus’ offer. The sight of his Savior seems to have been enough to convince him (cf. Joh 20:29). Thomas then uttered one of the most profound declarations of saving faith in Scripture. For a Jew to call another human being "my Lord and my God" was blasphemy under normal circumstances (cf. Joh 10:33). Yet that is precisely who Thomas believed Jesus was. It is also who John presented Jesus as being throughout this Gospel. Both titles were titles of deity in the Old Testament. Thomas had come to believe that Jesus was his lord in a fuller sense than before, and he now believed that Jesus was fully God.

"The repeated pronoun my does not diminish the universality of Jesus’ lordship and deity, but it ensures that Thomas’ words are a personal confession of faith. Thomas thereby not only displays his faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but points to its deepest meaning; it is nothing less than the revelation of who Jesus Christ is. The most unyielding sceptic [sic] has bequeathed to us the most profound confession." [Note: Carson, The Gospel . . ., p. 659.]

Now Thomas believed as his fellow disciples had come to believe (cf. Joh 20:25). His confession is a model that John presented for all future disciples. It is the high point of this Gospel (cf. Joh 1:1; Joh 1:14; Joh 1:18). John’s other witnesses to Jesus’ deity were John the Baptist (Joh 1:34), Nathanael (Joh 1:49), Jesus Himself (Joh 5:25; Joh 10:36), Peter (Joh 6:69), the healed blind man (Joh 9:35), Martha (Joh 11:27), and John the Apostle (Joh 20:30-31).

"Nobody has previously addressed Jesus like this. It marks a leap of faith. In the moment that he came to see that Jesus was indeed risen from the dead Thomas came to see something of what that implied. Mere men do not rise from the dead in this fashion. The One who was now so obviously alive, although he had died, could be addressed in the language of adoring worship." [Note: Morris, p. 753.]

Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual
Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 20:28

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

Fuente: The Great Texts of the Bible

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Fuente: The Apologists Bible Commentary

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

Fuente: Cornelius Lapide Commentary

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)