According to Matthew 28:17, when the eleven apostles saw the resurrected Christ in Galilee, some of them worshipped Him, “but some doubted.” In context, the “some” refers to the apostles. This account is important on two fronts.
First, it argues for the historical veracity of the claims made about Jesus in Matthew’s gospel. Many skeptics argue that the gospels were not penned by eyewitnesses to the events, but by later disciples who freely embellished or invented many of the sayings and deeds they attributed to Jesus. This is unlikely given the nature of their reports, including this one.
If later disciples were embellishing, or inventing history it is highly unlikely that they would include embarrassing details such as this one. What purpose would it serve to report that the very pillars of the church—the apostles—doubted the resurrection of Jesus even after He personally appeared to them? At best it could only detract from the witness of Christ’s resurrection. After all, if some of Jesus’ own chosen apostles were not convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead—even after having seen Him alive—how can those who have not seen Him alive be expected to believe on Jesus through the mere testimony of the apostles? If the author was writing historical fiction, we would expect the apostles to emerge as the heroes of unswerving faith. We find just the opposite.
The author of Matthew’s gospel was so committed to accurately reporting history that he even recorded events that were incriminating and embarrassing. Such honest and transparent historical reporting argues powerfully for the historical veracity of everything else the author had to say about Jesus, including His resurrection from the dead.
This account is also important to the question of why Jesus limited His post-resurrection appearances to close followers and relatives. If His own apostles doubted upon seeing Him alive after having died, how much more those who were not previously disposed to believe in Him? Think of the Jewish leaders’ response to the raising of Lazarus from the dead (Jn 12:9-11). Apparently they believed Jesus raised him from the dead, but their response was not repentance. Instead, they plotted to kill Lazarus so as to prevent others from believing on Jesus due to this miracle.
We tend to think, and skeptics often claim, that people would believe in God if only they saw a miracle. For some that is true, but for most it is not. They will do their best to explain the miracle away before confessing the Creator as their Lord. We underestimate the rebellion bound up in the human heart. As Jesus said in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, “If they will not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded even if one rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31).
Post-script (2/10/2010): Since penning this post I have come to believe that the “some” who doubted in Mt 28:17 probably does not
refer to a subset of the 11 apostles, but to other disciples who were present at the Galilean mountain but not identified by Matthew. The text says “the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him they worshipped him, but some doubted.” (Mt 28:16-17) The “they” most naturally refers to all of the 11, and thus it stands to reason that all 11 worshipped Jesus: when “they”—the 11—saw Him “they”—the 11—worshipped Him. This caveat, however, does not change the overall point of the post. It remains an unreasonable hypothesis to think Matthew—if he was writing fiction—would invent a story in which individuals who see the resurrected Christ for themselves still do not believe in Jesus.
This does invite a question, however. Who were those that doubted if not some of the eleven? They would most likely be part of a larger, unidentified group of witnesses that accompanied the eleven, all of whom were disciples of Jesus during His ministry. There is good reason to speculate that this was the epiphany Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 15:6 in which Jesus appeared to more than 500 people at once.
There are two reasons for this speculation. First, an appearance to so many people at once would require an outdoor setting. A mountain would be an ideal location since it would be big enough, and it would be far enough from the populace so as not to attract the attention of the authorities! The only two appearances described in the Gospels that occur outdoors and are not obviously limited to a small group of people are described in Matthew 28:16-20 and Luke 24:50-51. The account in Luke, however, implies that the appearance began indoors and then proceeded outdoors to a mountain (Lk 24:36 ff.; Acts 1:3-12). If this implication is valid, Luke’s account is ruled out as a possible appearance to the five hundred, leaving Matthew.
Second, Matthew tells us the disciples knew Christ was going to appear to them on the mountain in Galilee, so they traveled there for that express purpose (Mt 28:10, 16). This appearance is unique, then, in that it was by appointment. All the other appearances were unanticipated. Given the fact that the 11 knew where and when Jesus was going to appear, it is highly plausible that they invited a multitude of Jesus’ followers to accompany them to share in this amazing encounter, so that they too may see the risen Christ and believe. Both the location and the apostles’ foreknowledge of the appearance highly suggests that this appearance recorded by Matthew is the appearance to the 500 recorded by Paul.
May 5, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Here are some thoughts, notice the sequence.
1. In several Gospel passages (e.g. Mark 8:30) Jesus indicates His deity to the disciples and then explictly forbids them to tell anyone of Him.
2. In Matthew 27:53, those from open graves and the bodies of the saints fallen asleep appeared in Jerusalem subsequent to Christ’s resurrection. In Mark 12:18 we see that the Saduccee’s attempted to refute resurrection possibility with Christ, in person. This was also a core teaching of this sect. A mass appearance of resurrected saints would certainly establish the erroneousness of this view, as Christ had prophecied.
3. Between post-Calvary and pre-ascension periods of Christ’s presence on earth he spent much time with his close followers intimating divine truths to them. This was probably done to establish them further in the faith to suddenly be released upon the Globe with the Gospel of Christ, in Spirit and with truth.
4. It may not have been God’s sovereign and often mysterious intent to show the particular resurrected Christ to a carnal world. According to Acts, “beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”(Acts 1:22 NKJV)It is possible, then, that God’s purpose was to use a human witness of His resurrection, those who will subsequently, by being endued with Spirit Power, turn their world upside down. This was a “must” and not just coincidence. God obviously enabled them to do this with “great power” (Acts 4:33).
LikeLike
May 10, 2007 at 2:29 pm
James,
1. Jesus didn’t reveal His deity, but His Messiahship. While we believe Scripture teaches that Jesus, the Messiah, is God, “Messiah” in itself does not entail deity.
3. Out of the 40 day period in which Jesus appeared to His disciples, it doesn’t appear from Scripture that Jesus was spending a lot of time with His disciples. The appearances seem rather sporatic and brief. Of course, that could just be a limitation of reporting and/or reporting perspective.
4. I think you may be misinterpreting and/or misapplying that passage. Two things are being assumed by Peter: (1) that apostles were to proclaim the resurrected Christ; (2) that there needed to be a replacement for Judas. One of the criterion for becoming an apostle was having seen the resurrected Christ.
What you said also seems to beg the question to an extent. After all, if Jesus appeared to non-believers, doesn’t it stand to reason that many of them would cease being non-believers, and proclaim the resurrection? If so, then why didn’t Jesus appear to them?
Jason
LikeLike
May 10, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Jason, 1. Jesus didn’t reveal His deity, but His Messiahship. While we believe Scripture teaches that Jesus, the Messiah, is God, “Messiah” in itself does not entail deity.
James, 1. How one separates diety from Messiahship may be the greater question then. Maybe you can elaborate. It seems rather useless to imply otherwise, at this point. Were the Jewish sages concerned with a Messiah that was not from God?
Jason, 3. Out of the 40 day period in which Jesus appeared to His disciples, it doesn’t appear from Scripture that Jesus was spending a lot of time with His disciples. The appearances seem rather sporatic and brief. Of course, that could just be a limitation of reporting and/or reporting perspective.
James, 3. I would suggest then that whatever “sporatic” or “brief” occurences that do occur are probably centered around the disciples. Do you suggest an inordinate amount are not?
Jason, 4. I think you may be misinterpreting and/or misapplying that passage. Two things are being assumed by Peter: (1) that apostles were to proclaim the resurrected Christ; (2) that there needed to be a replacement for Judas. One of the criterion for becoming an apostle was having seen the resurrected Christ.
James, 4. Certainly the immediate context is referring to the 12 Disciples; however, this very fact confirms that God had an express purpose for these 12–to evangelize the death, burial, and resrurrection of Jesus Christ. I think it actually makes my point.
Jason, 4a.What you said also seems to beg the question to an extent. After all, if Jesus appeared to non-believers, doesn’t it stand to reason that many of them would cease being non-believers, and proclaim the resurrection? If so, then why didn’t Jesus appear to them?
James, 4a. What seems to be the expressed purpose of the Incarnational blessing to mankind? Was it to evangelize the world, Himself? Or, was it to become our justifier, our redeemer, the one which bore our penalty for sin? Christ was a forerunner for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which enables believer to “go”, “baptize” and “teach” (Matthew 28:19). Christ also came with “division” (Luke 12:49-53) for religious thought–metaphysical, not necessarily an existential activity–i.e. the disciples work.
LikeLike
May 10, 2007 at 4:01 pm
In addition, it is very likely, that the disciples were expecting a physical kingdom, probably even one of military dominance. Even more, in the Gospels we see Jesus imparting understanding and revelation of his divine purpose and nature, more so, to the disciples during the end of His earthly ministry (e.g. Lord’s Supper; Luke 24:27; John 20:22). Obviously this is a deepening and correcting of their understanding of His purpose. In retrospect we can understand how misunderstood Jesus may have been, until the Resurrection.
LikeLike
May 10, 2007 at 11:07 pm
James,
1. Yes, they thought of the Messiah as being “from God,” but that is entirely different than thinking He was God. The prophets were “from God,” but they were not an incarnation of God.
The Jewish hope for a Messiah was not a monolithic hope. There were many different ideas about what He would be like, and what He would do. None of them, however, saw the Messiah as divine. None of them, saw the Messiah as dying for sins, and resurrecting from the dead. He was a human being, that’s all. A great prophet, priest, and king…maybe, but God…no.
3. No, I think all of the appearances were to His disciples (although clearly not always to the 12). I’m just saying that there doesn’t appear to be very many appearances. This is important because it can’t be argued that the disciples had no time to proclaim the resurrection because they were always seeing Jesus. The text doesn’t seem to support that.
4. I’m not sure what you mean. I think we’re misunderstanding each other somewhere.
By the way, I like the new title of your blog: Evidential Faith.
Jason
LikeLike
May 10, 2007 at 11:12 pm
James,
I really like your last suggestion. If they were still looking for a physical kingdom to be setup, it’s best that they let Jesus take the lead, and remain quiet until He shows Himself alive to the Jews, proclaiming Himself their Messiah King.
Jason
LikeLike
May 11, 2007 at 11:05 am
Great points! I have never quite contemplated that distinction, thanks. In my last suggestion, I was trying to indicate that, because of their misunderstanding, Christ spent much time–post-resurrection–with the disciples imparting knowledge that He desired THEM to share. I do not think it was the Messianic purpose to evangelize the Gospel, but to bring it. If such a distinction can be made. Make sense?
LikeLike
May 15, 2007 at 12:38 am
James,
What is the distinction to which you refer?
Yes, that makes sense. I agree.
Jason
LikeLike
March 24, 2016 at 2:29 am
[…] Why Didn’t Jesus Appear to Unbelievers? […]
LikeLike
April 4, 2018 at 2:38 pm
As noted above,there seems to be a host of theo-logical/sophical gymnastics displayed to give the pre-ordained answer as to why Jesus didn’t appear to unbelievers after the His resurrection. Jesus said often that His road/load was not heavy! Whatever else is said, an appearance in the flesh, with marks,nail holes, etc. to say, the Temple crowd, would have paved the way to a far easier start to Christianity. Under the current history, the unbelievers could use any NUMBER of solid reasons as to why they did not believe the resurrection. The early followers had the difficulty of proving a negative: “Jesus didn’t die”. This question in no way shatters or even weakens my faith…I just believe it would have made a boatload of sense to appear to Aninias or Pilate.
LikeLike
April 4, 2018 at 5:19 pm
Dave West:
Your logic seems okay but only if you have a supernatural slant. if you have read the bible Gospels, and I assume you have, Jesus gave a parable about the rich man and Lazarus. in Luke 16 part of the parable goes like this:
30 “‘I know, Father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but they’re not listening. If someone came back to them from the dead, they would change their ways.’
31 “Abraham replied, ‘If they won’t listen to Moses and the Prophets, they’re not going to be convinced by someone who rises from the dead.’”
Now the fact is thaty jesus did not come back from the dead but he came back from the place of the dead after which everybody assumed Jesus was dead.
He was not dead nor was he some disembodied spirit and he was not supernatural.
What would have happened; well, for starters they would have taken him into custody again and re-did what they apparently failed to do the first time.
When Jesus appeared to Mary, he called her name and she recognized him; he said “Hold on! don’t, I say don’t, cling to me”. because he didn’t want to draw attention to himself that he was still alive if anybody was watching and did not want to become like unto the dead rising again for which the killers would have surely re-killed him again only this time making sure of it.
The point is that Jesus appearing to Ananias or Pilate would have been useless and totally against what he needed to accomplish to live yet leaving the mark of miraculous “certainty” (read belief) which was the only way to ensure that his message would live and linger down through the ages.
LikeLike