Two features of the resurrection appearances carry more evidential weight than they’re usually given. One concerns who saw Jesus first. The other concerns what kind of encounters these were.

A first-century fabrication would never conceivably have included women as first witnesses.

Who Saw Him First

All the Gospels make much of Jesus’ first post-death appearances being to women — Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James (Matt 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 23:55-24:1; John 20:1, 11). These women are repeatedly said to have witnessed the crucifixion and burial as well as the empty tomb (Mark 15:40, 47; Luke 23:55).

That females were reported as primary witnesses actually supports the historical accuracy of the accounts — because a first-century fabrication would never conceivably have included them.

Neither Jews nor Greeks of the period accepted women as legally admissible or reliable witnesses. That’s probably why the list in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 omits the appearances to women altogether. According to Josephus, female testimony (like that of slaves) wasn’t counted credible ‘due to the levity and temerity of their sex.’¹Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Books 1-4, 4.219 [15]; trans. H. St. J. Thackeray (William Heineman/Harvard University Press, 1961), 581.

Yet the Bible runs against the grain of its surrounding culture here, with the testimony of women preceding the apostles, who were all men. Matthew and John in particular, being Jews, would not have included women as valid witnesses ‘unless they were convinced that that is what happened.’²Swinburne, Was Jesus God?, 114.

Some early commentators also reckoned the inclusion of both genders among the eyewitnesses symbolises the witness of the whole church to Christ’s resurrection.³For example, Peter Chrysologus, Sermons 75.3; Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. New Testament Ib. Matthew 14-28, ed. Manlio Simonetti (IVP Academic, 2002), 305.

Fully Personal Encounters

The manner of the appearances verifies the resurrection further (1 Cor 15:5-8, 11). They were visible, audible, sensory — including touch. Bodily and physical in the fullest sense.

As well as seeing him, the eyewitnesses claimed to have spoken to him, heard him speaking to them, eaten and drunk with him at least four times, physically touched him at least twice, and on one occasion walked several miles with him in extended conversation. Without exception, the appearances involved already established personal relationships, articulated speech, complex communication, detailed explanation and instruction.

So the accounts depict the risen Jesus as physical (he ate and could be touched), relational (greeting, talking, answering questions), intellectual (teaching and imparting understanding, particularly of Scripture, sometimes at length), and unequivocally Divine (working a miraculous catch of fish, ascending into heaven as the apostles looked on).⁴Oden, Systematic Theology, 2:489; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 3, Q55.6.; CCEL ed., 3423 [available at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.html].

‘If someone is committed to a materialist atheist position on miracles, then no amount of evidence will be able to disturb this belief. He or she will encounter the lines of evidence presented … and find alternative explanations. … these alternative explanations will be complex, involving appeals to numerous scenarios normally judged to be improbable, whereas accepting the historical reliability of the Gospels will be simple. … One can seek to explain away each phenomenon individually, but a single and simple explanation can make sense of all the facts.’⁵Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels?, 133, 136.

The intellectual component deserves a pause. The appearances were actually revelations — occasions on which ‘Jesus again revealed himself to his disciples’ (John 21:1, 14). They were verbal and meaningful, imparting understanding. Which may be part of why the risen Christ appeared only to his chosen followers and witnesses, ‘not to all the people’ (Acts 10:41), and especially not to Pilate, Caiaphas and his other opponents, as if to prove himself right and prove them wrong.

Thomas, and Everyone Since

Jesus’ second appearance to his closest disciples produced one of the clearest acclamations of his Divinity in the New Testament. Thomas’ confession is addressed directly to him: ‘My Lord [kyrios] and my God [theos]!’ (John 20:28).

Note the order. It was by recognising the resurrection that Thomas came to recognise who Christ is, honouring the Son,and in that way, rightly honouring the Father (John 5:23). The critical conviction about Jesus’ identity came within an instant of meeting him risen.

Having missed the first appearance (John 20:19-24), Thomas demanded first-hand experience — exact, specific, tangible, visible proof (John 20:25). Jesus’ response (John 20:27, 29) suggests three things: his omnipresence and omniscience, since he had heard and knew what Thomas said without being physically present; his willingness to enable belief by providing conditions sufficient for total concrete certainty; and that the conditions of evidence adequate for certain belief would change over time.

There’s a pattern worth noticing in how Jesus handles the demand. He doesn’t rebuke Thomas for wanting evidence, and he doesn’t withhold it. He supplies exactly what was asked for.

Thomas’ route to faith suited his particular position in history. The vast majority come to believe without seeing or touching. Being ‘blessed’ in believing without that experience is appropriate to the situation of most people — for by far the greatest number, in the New Testament and since, are summoned to faith through the apostolic witness in spoken or written biblical form. ‘[L]ater believers come to faith through the testimony of earlier believers,’⁶D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (IVP, 1992), 660. as they hear the Scriptures preached and read them for themselves (John 20:30-31).

—

• 1
  Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Books 1-4, 4.219 [15]; trans. H. St. J. Thackeray (William Heineman/Harvard University Press, 1961), 581. ↩︎
• 2
  Swinburne, Was Jesus God?, 114. ↩︎
• 3
  For example, Peter Chrysologus, Sermons 75.3; Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. New Testament Ib. Matthew 14-28, ed. Manlio Simonetti (IVP Academic, 2002), 305. ↩︎
• 4
  Oden, Systematic Theology, 2:489; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 3, Q55.6.; CCEL ed., 3423 [available at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.html]. ↩︎
• 5
  Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels?, 133, 136. ↩︎
• 6
  D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (IVP, 1992), 660. ↩︎