Joh 20:28, Act 1:6, 7:59 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 28. 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: 1st. There is no evidence that this was a mere expression, as some have supposed, of surprise or astonishment. 2nd. The language was addressed to Jesus himself-- " Thomas-- said UNTO HIM. " 3rd. 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 ad dressed to him. Comp. . 4th. 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 . 5th. 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 , and which is established throughout this gospel. (f) "My Lord and my God."

John 20:28

Verse 28. 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:

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

2nd. The language was addressed to Jesus himself-- "Thomas-- said UNTO HIM."

3rd. 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 ad dressed to him. Comp. Acts 14:13-15, Rev 22:8,9.

4th. 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.

5th. 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 Jn 1:1, and which is established throughout this gospel.

(f) "My Lord and my God." Ps 118:28, Jn 5:23, 1Timm 3:16

Acts 1:6

Verse 6. When they therefore were come together. At the Mount of Olives. See Acts 1:9,12.

Wilt thou at this time, etc. The apostles had entertained the common opinions of the Jews about the temporal dominion of the Messiah. They expected that he would reign as a prince and conqueror, and free them from the bondage of the Romans. Many instances of this expectation occur in the Gospels, notwithstanding all the efforts which the Lord Jesus made to explain to them the true nature of his kingdom. This expectation was checked, and almost destroyed by his death, Lk 24:21. And it is clear that his death was the only means which could effectually check and change their opinions respecting the nature of his kingdom. Even his own instructions would not do it; and only his being taken from them could direct their minds effectually to the true nature of his kingdom. Yet, though his death checked their expectations, and appeared to thwart their plans, yet his return to life excited them again. They beheld him with them; they were assured it was the same Saviour; they saw now that his enemies had no power over him; that a Being who could rise from the dead, could easily accomplish all his plans. And as they did not doubt now that he would restore the kingdom to Israel, they asked whether he would do it at this time? They did not ask whether he would do it at all, or whether they had correct views of his kingdom; but taking that for granted, they asked him whether that was the time in which he would do it. The emphasis of the inquiry lies in the expression, "at this time," and hence the answer of the Saviour refers solely to the point of their inquiry, and not to the correctness or incorrectness of their opinions. From these expectations of the apostles we may learn,

(1.) that there is nothing so difficult to be removed from the mind as prejudice in favour of erroneous opinions.

(2.) That such prejudice will survive the plainest proofs to the contrary.

(3.) That it will often manifest itself even after all proper means have been taken to subdue it. Erroneous opinions thus maintain a secret ascendancy in a man's mind, and are revived by the slightest circumstances, even long after we supposed they were overcome; and even in the face of the plainest proofs of reason or of Scripture.

Restore. Bring back; put into its former situation. Judea was formerly governed by its own kings and laws; now it was subject to the Romans. This bondage was grievous, and the nation sighed for deliverance. The inquiry of the apostles evidently was, whether he would now free them from the bondage of the Romans, and restore them to their former state of freedom and prosperity, as in the times of David and Solomon. See Isa 1:26. The word" restore" also may include more than a reducing it to its former state. It may mean, Wilt thou now bestow the kingdom and dominion to Israel, according to the prediction in Dan 7:27?

The kingdom. The dominion; the empire; the reign. The expectation was that the Messiah--the King of Israel--would reign over men, and thus the nation of the Jews extend their empire over all the earth.

To Israel. To the Jews, and particularly to the Jewish followers of the Messiah. Lightfoot thinks that this question was asked in indignation against the Jews. "Wilt thou confer dominion on a nation which has just put thee to death?" But the answer of the Saviour shows that this was not the design of the question.

(e) "wilt thou" Mt 24:3,4 (f) "restore again" Isa 1:26, Dan 7:27

Acts 7:59

Verse 59. Calling upon God. The word God is not in the original, and should not have been in the translation. It is in none of the ancient Mss. or versions. It should have been rendered, "They stoned Stephen, invoking, or calling upon, and saying, Lord Jesus," etc. That is, he was engaged in prayer to the Lord Jesus. The word is used to express prayer in the following, among other places: 2Cor 1:23, "I call God to witness." 1Pet 1:17, "And if ye call on the Father," etc. Acts 2:21, "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord," etc.; Acts 9:14, 22:16, Rom 10:12-14. This was, therefore, an act of worship; a solemn invocation of the Lord Jesus, in the most interesting circumstances in which a man can be placed --in his dying moments. And this shows that it is right to worship the Lord Jesus, and to pray to him. For if Stephen was inspired, it settles the question. The example of an inspired man, in such circumstances, is a safe and correct example. If it should be said that the inspiration of Stephen cannot be made out, yet the inspiration of Luke, who has recorded it, will not be called in question. Then the following circumstances show that he, an inspired man, regarded it as right, and as a proper example to be followed.

(1.) He has recorded it without the slightest expression of an opinion that it was improper. On the contrary, there is every evidence that he regarded the conduct of Stephen in this case as right and praiseworthy. There is, therefore, this attestation to its propriety.

(2.) The Spirit that inspired Luke knew what use would be made of this case. He knew that it would be used as an example, and as an evidence that it was right to worship the Lord Jesus. It is one of the cases which has been used to perpetuate the worship of the Lord Jesus in every age. If it was wrong, it is inconceivable that it should be recorded without some expression of disapprobation.

(3.) The case is strikingly similar to that recorded in Jn 20:28, where Thomas offered worship to the Lord Jesus, as his God, without reproof. If Thomas did it in the presence of the Saviour without reproof, it was right. If Stephen did it without any expression of disapprobation from the inspired historian, it was right.

(4.) These examples were used to encourage Christians and Christian martyrs to offer homage to Christ. Thus Pliny, writing to the emperor Trajan, and giving an account of the Christians in Bithynia, says, that they were accustomed to meet and sing hymns to Christ as to God.-Lardner.

(5.) It is worthy of remark, that Stephen in his death offered the same act of homage to Christ, that Christ himself did to the Father, when he died, Lk 23:46. From all these considerations, it follows that the Lord Jesus is an object of worship; that in most solemn circumstances it is proper to call upon him, to worship him, and to commit our dearest interests to his hands. If this may be done, he is Divine.

Receive my spirit. That is, receive it to thyself; take it to thine abode in heaven.

(a) "receive my spirit" Ps 31:5, Lk 23:46