Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Matthew

[Pree]

Some of the apostles didn't believe in Jesus' resurrection.

In Matthew 28, after Jesus rose from the dead he told his disciples to meet him on a mountain in Galilee. But when they saw him, some of them doubted (Matthew 28:17). Although Mark is our earliest gospel, Matthew contains the earliest account of the disciple's reaction to seeing the risen Jesus. Some of them didn't believe it. And the later accounts don't include this detail (perhaps for fear of embarrassment).

Is it possible that the 11 apostles weren't all convinced of Jesus' resurrection? We don't have any writings from any of them stating their own beliefs (maybe Matthew and John if you believe they authored their own gospels, but most scholars say we don't know). And out of 11 apostles, we can only say that 2 of them were certainly martyred (i.e. Peter & James). Based on the scanty details that we have for most of these men and their beliefs, I think it's likely that some of them weren't convinced of the resurrection, and may have even lied to seem like more faithful followers.

[jimwalton]

You're guilty of taking an English word and making an assumption about what the author was saying in the Greek.

First let's go to the text itself. Notice it doesn't say some worshipped and some doubted. We are led to believe all worshipped and some doubted, which means their doubt was something other than disbelief. The Greek word is διστάζω (distadzo) which means "divided in mind; thinking two thoughts." It can mean confusion and doubt, but it can also mean wonder and amazement. We use the same kind of expression when we say "Unbelievable!" about something sensational. It's juxtaposition with "worship" would lead us to that interpretation of "doubted" rather than the "unbelief" interpretation. They had seen him die, and now again they are seeing him in front of their eyes.

N.T. Wright comments, ". This forces us to look for another explanation. One obvious one is that here, as in the other canonical resurrection narratives, the risen Jesus both was and was not “the same” as he had been before. There was something different about him, something that his closest friends and followers could not put their finger on at the time, something that seemed to enable him to do different things. Matthew’s Jesus does not allay their doubts and fears, as do John’s Jesus and, still more obviously, Luke’s. Matthew allows the tension to remain in the air. This was Jesus all right, but there was a mystery about him that even those who knew him best were now unable to penetrate."

> And the later accounts don't include this detail (perhaps for fear of embarrassment)

by that reasoning, Matthew 28 should have kept it hidden for fear of embarrassment also. Its record in Matthew, however, is a strong mark of the authenticity of the paragraph.

> Is it possible that the 11 apostles weren't all convinced of Jesus' resurrection?

No, it's not possible. All worshipped (Mt. 28.17). Luke 24 and John 20 both tell of the mental journey of the disciples from doubt to belief.

> We don't have any writings from any of them stating their own beliefs

You say this conclusively, and then you say it's inconclusive. While it is strongly debated, a convincing case can be mounted for John's and Matthew's authorship of their Gospels. There are also Peter's sermons and Peter's letter (1 Peter), where belief in the resurrection is both obvious and firm. There is no evidence (except a contrived case from silence) that would lead us to conclude that some of the apostles didn't believe in the resurrection.

> Martyrdom

Let's think it through, supposing the disciples got together and decided to spread this rumor in the community that Jesus had risen from the dead. In the first couple of weeks their ploy worked, and people were turning to the "Lord" ("Great joke, eh? And now people respect us!"). But now the pressure comes on. James is killed. Stephen is killed. Peter is imprisoned. In all practicality, we may find one or two of them willing to die for their ruse, but all 11? Not likely at all. Somebody (most of them) would crack under the pressure and confess it was fictional.

The counter accusation in the atheist community is maybe the disciples didn't know it was a lie; maybe they all had a mass hallucination to the point where they were convinced they all saw Jesus. The response to that is there is no such thing as a mass hallucination. A hallucination is something that happens in one person's mind, not across minds. That's not a sensible claim.

Chuck Colson tells the same story after the Watergate scandal broke in the early 1970s. The major players were all protecting each other and maintaining the lie until the pressure came on and they were going to be sent to prison for a long time. Then, Colson says, a bunch of them started singing like canaries, implicating the others, fighting for their own freedom and innocence, brokering deals. Many may die for what they believe to be true (plenty of martyrs of all stripes), even if it's false—they believe it's true. They do not, however, die for what they know is a lie. As Paul Little says, "If ever a man tells the truth, it is on his deathbed."

Here's what we know about the death of the apostles:

James was killed by Herod Agrippa (Acts 12.2). James' death is also mentioned by Clement of Rome in the late 1st century.

Peter's martyrdom is reported by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and more.

Andrew is thought (supposedly by the Acts of Andrew, a document that is no longer extant, but is referred to in the 3rd c. and in the 6th c.) to have been martyred by crucifixion at the city of Patras in Achaea, on the northern coast of the Peloponnese. We have no earlier information about his death.

We just have traditions about Philip. Stories of his death come from "The Acts of Philip," a 4th c. work. According to one tradition, he was crucified upside-down; in another he was martyred by beheading.

Bartholomew (Nathanael): One tradition says he was flayed alive and crucified upside-down, while another says he was beheaded. These accounts are sparse and their reliability is unknown.

Thomas: The earliest record of his death comes from Ephram the Syrian in the 4th c. According to tradition, he was killed in AD 72 in India.

Matthew (Levi): As far as I know, nothing is known of his death.

James, the son of Alphaeus: Very late tradition says he was crucified in Egypt.

Thaddeus (Judas, not Iscariot): Late tradition says he was martyred in Lebanon (Roman Syria).

Judas: suicided.

Simon the Zealot: Traditions vary from dying peacefully to being martyred by being sawn in two.

John, son of Zebedee: Little or nothing is known about his death.

Little is known about the reliability of these accounts (except for James and Peter, as you say, that are considered to be both authentic and reliable), and yet they are the only accounts we have. There is no evidence to the contrary, but that doesn't make these traditions true. Nor does it make them false. The truth is, this is all we know, and it's precious little.

> Based on the scanty details that we have for most of these men and their beliefs, I think it's likely that some of them weren't convinced of the resurrection, and may have even lied to seem like more faithful followers.

This is an illegitimate conclusion based on the evidence we have. The evidence we have is that they became convinced of the physical resurrection, despite its unbelievability, by overwhelming physical evidence, and became preachers of such to the detriment of their reputation and possibly the loss of their lives. There is little likelihood, in contrast, "that some of them weren't convinced of the resurrection." The likelihood, based on the evidence and records we have, is exactly the opposite. In addition, your conclusion that they "may have even lied" is without evidence or even justification. It seems to me so odd with the true evidence at hand that you so easily drift to a spurious conclusion.

[Pree]

I'd like to respond to this point by point.

Where does it say they all worshipped? It just says "they worshipped but some doubted". You might think that by saying "they" it automatically implies that "all" of them participated. But consider a similar example in Mark 8. When Jesus asks "Who do men say that I am", the disciples reply "John the Baptist; BUT SOME say Elijah." As you can see, this parallel example shows that sometimes the phrase "but some" is used to show a stark contrast.

[jimwalton]

Good comment and question. Thanks.

> Where does it say they all worshipped?

It's the context and the referent. First it says in v. 16 that the 11 surviving disciples went to the mountain Jesus told them. So we have 12 people there: Jesus, and 11 followers. Then it says "when they saw him." I would hope we can conclude with confidence that all 11 saw him. It's a pretty small group, and they are there to meet Jesus. It follows immediately (in the same sentence) "they worshiped him." The implication is obvious that the same 11 who met him on the mountain were the same 11 who saw him and were the same 11 who worshipped. All three references speak about the same group of 11. You have to twist the text to say, "Well, we can't be sure all 11 saw him there." They all went as a group specifically to meet with Jesus—to see him. In the same sense you have to twist the obvious meaning of the text to claim, "Well, we can't be sure all 11 worshipped."

But is that different from Mark 8? Yes, distinctively. When Jesus says "Who do people say I am," he's making a general reference to the entire populace who has had some connection, either directly or indirectly with him. He is speaking of thousands upon thousands of people, even tens of thousands. By the middle point of his ministry, he has been exposed to great masses of people. You can't possibly be claiming that all 10,000-20,000 people think he's John the Baptist, but some of those say Elijah. That's not the point of the text or the meaning of the communication. The point of the text is that there were a variety of opinions about his identity. Matthew's account of the same conversation (since Matthew was there) specifically includes, "On the one hand some say John the Baptist, while others say Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

I'm going to stick with my interpretation because I'm confident of it. All 11 worshipped.

You know, another possible source of the "doubt" was in that the disciples were not expecting Jesus' ministry to "end" in this way. They were still thinking of political fulfillment (Acts 1.6), and still weren't understanding about the true nature of Jesus' ascension, the coming of the Spirit, and the founding of the Church.

First I said that it was an expression of amazement, which I still believe to be true. Someone coming back from the dead and standing in front of me would continue to rock my world for quite some time. But there could also be a secondary "doubt": "This isn't what we were expecting would happen now." In any case, I think it's vastly unjustified to assume they weren't all convinced and were later liars about it.

[Pree]

Imagine I take a group of 11 kids shopping at the toy store. When they saw the toys, they screamed with excitement, but some pouted.

In this story, you immediately recognize what I'm trying to say. I'm making a clear distinction between the kids who screamed with excitement and the kids who pouted. Using your logic, we would have to say that all the kids screamed with excitement since all the kids saw the toys. But I don't think this follows.

But moving on, I agree that the word "doubt" can have several meanings. As you stated, it's very plausible that the disciples just weren't expecting this. I'm only presenting an alternative hypothesis (that some of the apostles didn't believe), since the evidence we have doesn't point conclusively one way or the other.

[jimwalton]

Obviously the whole discussion hangs on the word "doubt." The word used in Matthew 28.17 (διστάζω [distadzo]) is a different term than the word for doubt that is used, for instance, in James 1:6, which is διακρινόμενος (diakrinomenos), where it says, "But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind." In James, "doubt" is more like disbelief (in contrast to "he must believe"). This person trusts God one minute, and in the next minute trusts self and the world. But this term in Matthew is διστάζω, from dis meaning "in two; divided" and tasso meaning "devotion; station; fixed point." It can mean divided in mind (questioning and doubting) or divided in mind (knowing what you are seeing and thinking it unbelievable).

In your analogy, you like to think some were pouting. I don't think that's accurate, and I'll give you more evidence. First, as I said, they all worshipped. This is the first time the disciples are described as doing so. It would be quite odd for the author to finally say they are worshipping as a group only to tell us some were pouting (doubting).

Secondly, according to A.T. Robertson (3 doctoral degrees: Doctor of Divinity, LL.D. [doctor of law], and Litt. D. [doctor of letters], and widely regarded as the finest Greek scholar ever), the οἱ δὲ before distadzo is a demonstrative pronoun that is not expressing a contrast. In other words, they all worshipped and they all distadzo. So we are still left to interpret *distadzo*.

Third point, "When they saw him" is καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν, from εἴδω. εἴδω denotes a more prolonged scrutiny than a mere glance. The word is also related to knowledge. It includes such concepts as to inspect closely to the point of knowing; to perceive the truth; to discern by experience."

If we put these all together we can better discern what Matthew is saying. The 11 disciples did what Jesus told them to do: meet him on this mountain. God had often revealed himself on mountains in the Bible, so there is an implication that God will reveal himself here as well. In addition, contextually it was the climax to several previous appearances. They have already seen him, experienced his resurrection, and believe that he has risen from the dead. It has been evidenced to them. They have touched him, seen him eat and drink, and they have listened to him teach.

Now, when they "see" him we are to infer that it is prolonged scrutiny, and examination that leads them to knowing, a perceiving of the truth. Their (as a group) first response is to worship—the first time the disciples are described as doing so.

Then the writer says, without implying a contrast, that they all distazo. I think we have to wrench the word right out of context and sensibility to claim that it means they didn't believe, they were not convinced, that they were pouting and doubting, and that later they lied about believing in his resurrection. In contrast, everything about the text and context are leading us in exactly the opposite direction: they are absolutely blown away by his presence. There is a reality about him they can be sure of, but a mystery about him that they are unable to completely penetrate. Instead of a contrast with worship, the *distadzo* is supposed to contribute even more to their conviction.

Jesus confirms it with the authoritative words he speaks, putting himself on a level with God (divine authority and omnipresence) and commissioning them with words of power and life.

[Pree]

> It would be quite odd for the author to finally say they are worshipping as a group only to tell us some were pouting (doubting).

Why would that be odd? It may not make for a good plot ending, but it's certainly not odd.

> Secondly, according to A.T. Robertson

Can you cite the source? I'd like to see how he arrived at his conclusion.

> Third point, "When they saw him" is καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν, from εἴδω. εἴδω denotes a more prolonged scrutiny than a mere glance.

What then do you make of Matt 4:18? "Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw 2 brothers, Simon called Peter and Andrew his brother". The same word εἴδω is used. Was this a mere glance or a prolonged scrutiny?

> They have already seen him, experienced his resurrection, and believe that he has risen from the dead. It has been evidenced to them.

...sure, if you lump all the gospels together.

There is nothing about this word "doubt" that precludes the possibility of some of the disciples disbelieving.

[jimwalton]

We have to take the whole flow of what the author is saying. That's what I'm getting at. You want to just take the word, one word, and base your whole case on it. But that's not how literature works. We have to understand the author's agenda, the flow of his thought, and the argument he is creating. The author has given us one point after another of the belief, amazement, and convincing evidence of the disciples' response to the resurrection. And in the midst of all of that, at the point of climax, when Jesus has called them to the mountain as a revelation of deity, you want to interpret one word as, "Nah, I don't buy it." It's totally foreign to everything Matthew is saying.

> A.T. Robertson. "Can you cite the source?"

Sure. **A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research** by A. T. Robertson (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1934) p. 694.

> Matt. 4:18

Jesus' "seeing" the two brothers was different than just physically seeing them. He is perceiving something that he knows about them, and he is about to call them to be his followers and to help him accomplish his purposes on the earth.

> sure, if you lump all the gospels together.

Even if I don't lump the Gospels together, this is Matthew's point as well. Matthew believed that Jesus really did physically rise from the dead (Mt. 28.1-15). The stories he tells here in chapter 28 cannot have been intended by him to be taken in the sense of "this is a metaphorical way of speaking of the spiritual victory of the cross" or "read my tale and you will sense the spiritual presence of Jesus." The narrative isn't falsely built up to just look like history. The significance of his story is that Matthew believed in a real resurrection. Matthew's whole point from the very first verse is that Jesus is the true messianic king, the legitimate successor to Moses and David. The angelic appearance (28.3) like lightning is linked with OT theophanies (Ex. 3.2; 13.21, et al.). "He is going ahead of you" (7) is reminiscent of Moses. The women worship him (9) when they see him, just as the disciples will (17), but they have fear, because what they are seeing is so...so...unbelievable (10, just like the disciples in 17). Jesus tells them he will meet them on a mountain, just as God did with Moses in Exodus 19. And when they saw him, they worshipped him, just as the women did: "This is incredible!" Then Jesus commissions them as a king would. Jesus was the David, the completely rightful and righteous king David never was. He puts himself on an equal plane with God (sovereign authority and omnipresent). You can't keep telling me that Matthew is telling us the disciples didn't buy it. The whole flow, thesis, and context preclude the possibility of interpreting "doubt" as disbelief.

[Pree]

> You can't keep telling me that Matthew is telling us the disciples didn't buy it. The whole flow, thesis, and context preclude the possibility of interpreting "doubt" as disbelief.

Point taken. I would agree that the author of Matthew is building a case that Jesus is the risen Messiah, and to paint the disciples as unbelievers wouldn't help his case. This probably precludes the possibility of interpreting doubt as disbelief in Matthew... but do you think this precludes the possibility that some of the disciples actually didn't believe it?

I guess what I'm asking is, even given the traditions we have about the apostles that say they all believed, do you think it even possible that some of them didn't?

[jimwalton]

I don't. Before the resurrection they are often presented in a negative light. In the Gospel of Mark I don't think they ever do or say ANYTHING right, except for Peter's confession in Mark 8.29. But after the resurrection they are portrayed very differently.

But let's look at your hypothesis fairly.

Matthew: The women innocently come to the tomb and discover the stone is rolled away. Angels are on the scene. The guards are so afraid they pass out. The women are afraid, but listen. They are of two minds: "afraid but filled with joy" (28.8). When Jesus met them they worship. We finally get to the disciples in v. 16. They obey the message, and go to where they can meet Jesus. They also are of two minds: worship, but some "doubted". The mountain, however, is portrayed as the site of a theophany, where God is revealed to them. That's all we read, but I've shown all the implications of that illustrating belief.

In Mark's version we learn nothing about the disciples. Angels arrive on the scene. The women are afraid.That's all we read. (Mark ends at v. 8; vv. 9-20 are later additions and not original.)

In Luke we get a more thorough story. Angels appear, the women are afraid. The disciples don't believe it at first (Lk. 24.11)—who would!? They do some investigation of the evidence (12, 24)...and then the story switches to two followers of Jesus walking down the road. Jesus appears to them incognito. In the course of the story, they come to recognize the risen Jesus (31) and they believe (34). They tell the apostles. Then Jesus appears to the apostles (36). They are of two minds: fear and troubled (doubts, as in v. 11), but also weighing the evidence. In v. 41 again we find they are of two minds: they "doubt" because they are so filled with joy and amazement (Lk. 24.41)—the same idea as in Matt. 28.17. Jesus eats with them as another evidence of the reality of his physical resurrection. They worship him (v. 52). It corroborates well with Matthew's portrayal of the disciples.

John gives us yet another picture, but the same. The women's first reaction seems to be confusion and possibly fear (Jn. 20.2). Peter and John go to examine the evidence (vv. 3-8). We are told that John believed upon examination of the evidence. Mary sees angels and is afraid. She sees Jesus but doesn't recognize him (14). Mary is of "two minds": she is confused and fearful, but also believing (18). That same night (the Sunday night of the resurrection) Jesus appears to 10 of his disciples, and they believe (19-20). Thomas wants direct evidence himself, and he gets it, and he believes (24-28). He worships (28). The conclusion is that the disciples believed, and the evidence is strong enough for anyone to believe (Jn. 20.31).

So I conclude decisively that all of this precludes the possibility that some of the disciples actually didn't believe. There is no evidence from the Gospels (as outlined), from Acts, or from history that the apostles weren't fully convinced of Jesus' physical resurrection.