Alleged Contradiction # 1: Who first came to the tomb and when did they arrive?

Matthew 28:1—

The critics charge that here Matthew reports two women went to the tomb at dawn. The critics allege that this conflicts with the parallel accounts in the other Gospels.

Mark 16:1, 2—

The critics charge that Mark says three women went to the tomb after sunrise. The critics claim this is a contradiction because the persons involved and the time of the event differs. Matthew says there were two women at dawn. Mark says there were three women, not two, and he didn’t say "at dawn" but "just after sunrise."

Luke 24:1—

The critics charge that Luke’s account differs from Matthew’s and Mark’s. The women are not identified, and the time given is not Matthew’s "at dawn" or Mark’s "just after sunrise" but "very early in the morning."

John 20:1—

The critics charge that John’s account disagrees with that of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Matthew says two women went to the tomb. Mark says three women went to the tomb; Luke does not identify the number of women. John says only Mary Magdalene, one woman, went to the tomb. Further, John does not say that they went to the tomb "at dawn" (Matthew), or "just after sunrise" (Mark), or "very early in the morning" (Luke), but "while it was still dark."

Mark 16:1—

Luke 24:1—

John 19:39b-40—

5. Do Mark and Luke contradict Matthew and John concerning the ACTIONS of the women?

The critics charge that both Mark and Luke mention the women procured spices so they could anoint Jesus’ body on Sunday morning. But Matthew gives no indication of this. Further, John records it was Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus who supplied the spices and anointed Jesus’ body on Friday evening (John 19:39).

6. Do all the Gospel writers contradict each other concerning the NUMBER of women, the TIME they went to the tomb and the ACTIONS of the women?

After examining the above verses, the critics conclude that the Gospel writers conflict in their accounts of 1) who first came to the tomb (the number and identity of the women) and 2) what time this occurred and 3) who supplied the spices to anoint Jesus’ body and when this anointing occurred.

The first objection of the critics is that there are contradictions concerning the number of women who went to the tomb. Matthew mentions Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, i.e., two women; Mark mentions Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, i.e., three women; Luke simply mentions "the women," while John mentions only Mary Magdalene, i.e., one woman.

But writers have every right to select facts according to their purposes. Mark obviously feels it is important to report that Salome was also at the tomb while Matthew does not. Perhaps Salome was the woman, or one of the two women, who reported the events to Mark.

Or, because Matthew learned of this event from a different source which may not have included Salome, he does not mention her. We cannot know the reason why one author selects information another author does not. Such information is simply not given, nor does anyone have the right to expect that it should be. It would make any writer’s job virtually impossible for him to meticulously list all the specific reasons for including the details he did and why he did not include other details.

The critics charge that Luke disagrees with Matthew and Mark because Luke merely mentions "the women." But this is absurd. Notice, none of the Gospel writers say it was only two women, or only one woman, or only these three women. Each writer describes those he wants to recognize—either because of a specific emphasis he has or because that is all the information he knows. But none of the writers give wrong or contradictory information. If one of the four writers had said only so and so went to the tomb and another writer said only somebody else specifically went to the tomb, then we would have a contradiction.

Today, it is perfectly reasonable for two modern newspaper reporters to describe a women’s gathering honoring three particular ladies, and to either name the specific individuals present or to refer to one woman representative of the entire group, or to just cite the "honored women" of the occasion. Similarly, in referring only to "the women," Luke does not contradict Matthew and Mark; he is simply less specific.

The critics charge that John contradicts Matthew, Mark and Luke because he mentions only one woman, Mary Magdalene, who went to the tomb.

There are two possibilities. First, as we discuss elsewhere (See Q. 19, 33), all the women set out for the tomb, and Mary arrived first. John simply records the fact of Mary arriving first. We explain why below. Or second, it may be as simple as stating John only chooses to write about Mary even though he could have written about all of them.

But again, John didn’t say only Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and no other women. There is no reason why John should not concentrate upon Mary Magdalene if he has reason to do so.

Probably the reasons John concentrates upon Mary Magdalene are because 1) Jesus’ first Resurrection appearance was to Mary Magdalene, not one of the apostles according to Mark’s appendix (Mark 16:9). 2) Mary had looked into the tomb and seen the two angels (John 20:11-12). 3) Jesus may have appeared to Mary first because He knew of her complete dedication and earnestness in following Him. John has already recorded in 19:25 that Mary was at the cross while Jesus was dying. In John 20:1, she went to His tomb early on Sunday morning. In 20:10-14, Mary remained outside the tomb crying. All of these things reveal how much Mary loved Jesus. 4) In 20:17, Mary was personally commissioned by Jesus to go and tell the disciples the good news.

Anyone who reads John 20:1-18 will see that the entire section stresses the importance of Mary Magdalene: What she did, how she came running to Peter and John, how Mary subsequently met Jesus at the tomb, and how she was commissioned to give a message to the apostles. It is not surprising then that the Apostle John should choose to single out Mary Magdalene in his reporting of these events.

We must also keep in mind that each of the writers learned their information from different sources. Luke records, "It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this [knowledge of the fact of the empty tomb and the angels’ message concerning Jesus’ Resurrection] to the apostles" (Luke 24:10).

Picture the different women, immediately after their dramatic encounter with the angels, each explaining what she had seen and what she thought was important to any one of the eleven apostles who happened to be standing by her at the moment. This would explain why certain facts are mentioned and other facts are omitted. Luke might have heard a little bit from each of the women or most of it from just one.

John might have correctly assumed that the majority of Christians already knew that this group of women went to the tomb. But he decided to share additional details of what had happened to Mary Magdalene which others may not have known.

Indeed, when Luke mentions "the others with them" (Luke 24:10), one could even assume that at that first Easter morning visit to the tomb, more than three women were present. If Luke is describing the women who were actually at the tomb, then there were at least five women (Joanna and "the others," signifying at least one more person than Salome). It is also possible that the "other women" mentioned by Luke were present and part of those who collectively "told this [event] to the apostles."

As noted earlier, John may have concentrated on Mary Magdalene to the exclusion of the other women. But it is more probable that Mary was actually the first person to the tomb. Thus, we believe this second option is preferable. Let’s say all the women had planned to meet at the tomb and left their homes at approximately the same time. Mary arrived first, observed the empty tomb and before her companions arrived, ran to tell Peter and John that the tomb was empty (See Q. 19, 33). Matthew, Mark and Luke could talk generally about all of the women going to the tomb. They would be correct. John could report the fact that Mary reached the tomb first. He would be correct.

If our assumption is valid, this explains John’s account as it stands. Nor does it conflict with anything the other Gospel writers assert. But here we must observe there are unannounced breaks in two of the Gospels. These occur in Mark 16 between verses 1 and 2 and in Matthew 28 between verses 1 and 2, and again between verses 4 and 5. For proof that the Gospel writers employ this abbreviated writing style see Question 16. Acknowledging these breaks permits us to see that Mary was first to the tomb and that the other women came shortly after she left. Further, in Luke 24:9-11, Luke’s inclusion of Mary with the other women who report what happened at the tomb is not in conflict with our reconstruction. (For a probable chronological sequence of events here, see that offered by Geldenhuys in Q. 35).

But there are other views. For example, noted Roman Catholic scholar John Lilly believes that Mary was first to arrive (while it was still dark), but that she was still present when the other women arrived at the tomb. Lilly adopts the view that all the women mentioned by the Gospel writers were, as a group, first to arrive at the tomb. Answering the general question, "Who discovered the empty tomb?", he states:

The critics allege that contradictions exist concerning the specific time the women went to the tomb. After all, didn’t Matthew say "at dawn," while Mark says "just after sunrise"?

But consider modern reporting of Easter "Sunrise" Services. Who would charge a reporter with error because he stated the events began "at dawn" while another reporter said that they began "just after sunrise"? "At dawn" includes "just after sunrise." Even 20th century reporters do not use scientifically precise chronology in their reporting; why should we expect it of the Gospel authors? Further, what if the two reporters are discussing different "beginnings"—preliminary events vs. the official start of the service? Both phrases, "at dawn" and "just after sunrise," can involve a significant time span. If we say we went to the beach "at dawn," the hearer understands that we could mean anything from several minutes before sunrise till several minutes after sunrise. Thus, there is no contradiction between Matthew and Mark.

The critics next charge that Luke disagrees with Matthew and Mark because Luke says, "very early in the morning," not "at dawn" per Matthew or "just after sunrise" per Mark. But again, "very early in the morning" includes the descriptions given by both Matthew and Mark. In fact, the phrase could refer to any time after 1 a.m.! When one gets up "very early in the morning," this can include a significant span of time, certainly at least half an hour before dawn until just after sunrise. Therefore, Luke does not contradict anything Matthew or Mark says.

But the critics charge that with John we certainly have a contradiction. John says, "While it was still dark." This phrase the critics allege is certainly not compatible with "at dawn" or "just after sunrise" when obviously it would not be "still dark." But consider again the normal use of language. "While it was still dark" can describe conditions that exist "at dawn." Everyone who has been up "at dawn" certainly knows it is not yet the full light of day. In fact, depending on weather conditions, it can be quite dark even "at dawn" or "just after sunrise."

If we only consider the manner in which language is typically used, we can see that there is no necessary contradiction between Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Even the most "discrepant" of the accounts—"just after sunrise" and "while it was still dark"—can easily refer to the same period of time.

There are other facts that must be considered which further indicate there is no contradiction between these accounts. What if each writer is describing a certain period of time at which the women either left their houses, or traveled, or the point in time when they actually arrived at the tomb? Dr. Gleason Archer carefully examined the original language used by the writers and concluded:

So, if one reads the accounts carefully and takes note of the fact that the women were on a journey to the tomb, not only is there no basis to assume a contradiction, one actually wonders why anyone would accuse these writers of such a thing. Obviously, there could be many unstated reasons why each writer would include different details of the same event. Because he does, this does not show contradiction; rather, it shows truthfulness in his reporting.

Lilly not only observes the harmony existing among the four accounts but also supplies an additional reason explaining why they differ: the delay of certain of the women to purchase spices. This would require additional time and explain the difference between John’s Gospel and the others. In this event, Mary herself would have arrived at the tomb alone, before the other women.

John Wenham provides an overall succinct summary, proving that there is no contradiction concerning the time element in the four narratives:

Whether we are considering the number of women at the tomb or the time element, it is clear that there is no contradiction between the Gospel accounts.

When Mark and Luke report that the women bought spices for anointing Jesus’ body on Sunday morning, and John records that Nicodemus supplied the spices and applied them to Jesus’ body on Friday evening, the critics claim this is another contradiction.

John records that on Friday evening (before the Sabbath began), "Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about 75 pounds. Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, and strips of linen. This was in accordance with the Jewish burial custom" (John 19:39-40).

But according to Luke certain unnamed women had followed Jesus from Galilee. They saw Him crucified, saw the tomb and how the body was laid and "went home and prepared spices and perfumes" (Luke 23:56). They rested on the Sabbath, but on Sunday morning they brought the spices to the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body (Luke 24:1).

According to Mark 16:1-2, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome purchased additional spices and went to the tomb on Sunday morning to anoint Jesus’ body.

This is not a contradiction because although the women were intending to anoint Jesus’ body with the spices, they never had the opportunity to do so. When they arrived at the grave, the body was already absent and Christ was resurrected.

Further, the critic charges that only Mark and Luke mention that the women brought spices, whereas Matthew and John do not mention this at all. But why should anyone consider this a contradiction?

All four Gospel writers would have known that the body of Jesus required anointing according to Jewish burial custom. It is perfectly reasonable for two to mention this fact and the other two to assume it.

We must also remember that the Gospel writers are independent reporters of these events. The hallmark of independent reporting is differences in content.

For example, in a court of law, it is always true that four witnesses describing a traffic accident (or a crime) will each supply different information. Characteristically, witnesses notice and report matters which are unique, relevant or important to them. But no judge would ever instruct a jury to ignore what a dependable witness says merely because different details were reported.

The same is true for the Gospel writers. Each one devotes differing amounts of space and detail to the women coming to the tomb. Matthew and Mark supply 8 verses each (Matthew 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-8), yet both mention things the other does not. Luke gives 10 verses (Luke 24:1-10) while John gives only 2 verses (John 20:1-2).

It is unreasonable to assume that every Gospel writer would record the event in precisely the same way, giving precisely the same details. This would be evidence of collusion, not independent testimony.

Consider the illustration of a group of employees at an important business luncheon. Ask each employee to file a report of the event later that day. One may recount how taken he was with the day’s speaker. Another may recall how impressed she was with the good service and quality of the food. One other individual may remember the important things discussed over lunch; another only how pretty the waitresses were. If we were to take all the reports of the employees and compare them, would we charge that they contradicted one another merely because they listed different details according to what impressed them most?

Modern liberal theologians and rationalistic, atheistic skeptics agree when it comes to the alleged contradictions in the Resurrection narratives. Virtually every liberal theologian and/or skeptic on The John Ankerberg Show commenting upon the issue has either denied the Resurrection of Christ or cast doubts upon the narratives because of these alleged contradictions.

8. Does Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong teach the Gospel narratives are greatly confused?

In his book, The Easter Moment, Bishop Spong expands on his beliefs that the differences and alleged contradictions in the Resurrection accounts cast doubt upon the Resurrection itself:

Bishop Spong charges there is great confusion in the Resurrection narratives. But the evidence shows that the confusion may lie with the critic. We have just demonstrated above that, not only is there no confusion concerning who first visited the tomb, there is no contradiction concerning the time the women went to the tomb.

As to Bishop Spong’s specific charges, we should note, first of all, that there is no necessity for Paul to mention the visitors to the tomb on Easter morning. Paul was converted to the Christian faith several years after the Resurrection. It was, therefore, natural for him to leave the discussion of the particular happenings of Easter morning to those who were close to or participants in the actual events.

10. Do critics often misconstrue exactly what the Resurrection narratives claim?

Here we see Mr. Naland does not have his facts straight. Notice again that no Gospel account mentions only Mary Magdalene went to the tomb. No account mentions only Mary Magdalene and another woman came to the empty tomb, or that only three other women came to the tomb.

In considering all of the above material, what may we conclude? We must conclude that no contradiction exists between the number of women who went to the tomb on Easter morning and when this event occurred.

If three or more women went as a group to the tomb, then each writer could focus on the particular women he wanted to emphasize. Each writer could focus on a particular woman, women, or the group as a whole according to his purposes.

Further, if the women lived different distances from the tomb, then when they each started their journey, the time factor would have been slightly different. Notice, each writer was free to report the time the women left their homes and started their journey, the time during any part of the journey itself, or the time when they arrived at the tomb.

Finally, each Gospel writer could have received the information from which he wrote his account from one or more of the women. Each woman would naturally tell the event from her perspective, mentioning the details that seemed relevant to her and omitting the others.

Matthew 28:2-4—

The critics claim that Matthew refers to only one angel who was outside the tomb and that this contradicts the other Gospel narratives.

Mark 16:4-5—

The critics claim the account of Mark contradicts that of Matthew. Matthew mentions one angel outside the tomb, but Mark mentions not one angel but a young man who, further, was not outside but inside the tomb.

Luke 24:2-5—

The critics claim that Luke contradicts both Matthew and Mark. Matthew says that there is one angel outside the tomb, while Mark mentions not an angel but a young man inside the tomb. But Luke mentions not one angel or one man but two men. Further, Luke has the men inside the tomb, not outside it.

John 20:11-12—

14. Does John contradict Matthew, Mark and Luke in saying there were TWO angels INSIDE the tomb who appear ONLY to Mary?

The critics claim that John’s account only confuses matters further because John refers to two angels who appear only to Mary Magdalene. Further, in John there are two angels inside the tomb. Thus, the critics declare unequivocally that the number of beings (one or two), their exact nature (men or angels), and their location are hopelessly confused and simply cannot be reconciled.

15. Do all four of the Gospel writers contradict each other in describing the LOCATION and POSITION of the angels?

The critics assert that not only the location but also the position of the beings is contradictory. Matthew has a single angel sitting outside the tomb; Mark has a young man sitting at the right side of the tomb; Luke has two men inside the tomb standing beside the women; John has two angels in the tomb, both seated, one where Jesus’ head had been and the other where Jesus’ feet had been.

In harmonizing the Gospel accounts, we should keep in mind, if two or more angels are present at various times, they can be in a variety of locations and positions both inside and outside the tomb.

Were the persons men or angels?

The Gospel writers seem to report different "beings" at the tomb. Matthew reports "an angel." Mark reports "a young man." Luke reports "two men." John reports "two angels." Do these accounts conflict concerning the nature of the beings reported—i.e., were they earthly men or heavenly angels? How do we respond to the critics who claim these accounts conflict?

When the Gospel writers refer to angels as men, they are describing how the angels appeared to them. Whenever angels appear to men in the Scriptures, they are almost always said to take the form of men. Nor is this surprising; it seems to be a deliberate attempt to reduce the anxiety level of those they contact. But they may reveal that they are angels in some unique way as they did in Matthew 28:2-3 or they may keep their angelic nature entirely hidden, as is plain from Hebrews 13:2. Therefore, it is not contradictory for the four Gospel writers to refer to the angels as men or as angels. Both are correct.

Regardless, Matthew specifically states it was an angel of the Lord. When angels are described as men, there is really little doubt as to the angelic nature of the men.

Luke, although describing their appearance as "men," also clearly identifies them as angels for he notes they were "in clothes that gleamed like lightning." Throughout the Bible angels are many times described as "men." In fact, sometimes in the very same passage angels are first described as "men" and later as "angels."

Are we or are we not going to accept the existence of "beings" called angels? If we do accept their existence, then isn’t it also logical to assume that they may come and go as they please and appear and disappear as they please?

In Matthew’s account, by the time the women arrived, the guards had already been frightened away by the angel. Then the angel proceeded inside the tomb so as not to frighten the women away:

Why did the angels go inside the tomb? Again, probably so as to not frighten the women and also because this is where the women would naturally go, observing that the rock had been rolled back. It seems the angels wanted the women to enter the tomb to observe the absence of Jesus’ body. Now, does Matthew conflict with Mark’s description concerning the locations of the angels?

Mark is clear that the women "entered the tomb" and there saw an angel "on the right side" (Mark 16:5). Luke is also very clear that the women entered the tomb: "They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus" (Luke 24:2, 3). Further, Mark states the women went inside the tomb ("as they entered the tomb"), and tells us the angel helped the women by giving them the same message recorded by Matthew, "see the place where they laid him."

From this it can be seen that the angel’s "request" in Matthew to "come and see the place where he lay" is not a request for the women outside the tomb to come inside the tomb, but to take more specific notice of the exact location of Jesus’ body and to note that it was no longer there. Tombs in those days were not small body-sized graves, but were often large sepulchers the size of a small modern room. The angels’ request is appropriate if it is made from inside the tomb.

There is no reason to assume that the angel’s message in Matthew was given outside the tomb since: 1) Mark and Luke both record the message as being given inside the tomb and 2) Matthew has compressed his narrative, leaving out some of the details Mark and Luke include.

The only difference between Matthew and Mark is that Matthew does not include the details of the women entering the tomb. But this omission is the kind of omission that all of us make every day.

How many of us have said to a friend, "Hey, let’s go to lunch. We’ll get some burgers at McDonald’s." The fact that the incident of driving to McDonald’s is omitted does not suggest that lunch was not eaten at McDonald’s.

That Matthew does not specify the location at which the angel delivered his message to the women hardly proves it did not occur inside the tomb, particularly when all the other writers say it did. That’s why no contradiction exists between Matthew and Mark.

Here, the critics wrongly assume that Matthew has stated the angel always remained outside the tomb. Clearly, the angel was outside the tomb at one point. But Matthew never states anywhere that the angel was confined to existing outside the tomb and could not change locations in order to speak to the women.

It is very important to understand how Matthew has recorded specific events in his book. His account of what took place at the tomb concerning the angels appearing, the guards being frightened away, the women coming to the tomb, and what happened next are all compressed. How do we know? By comparing what the other Gospel writers say.

Thus, sometimes, even though Matthew relates his story of events with no visible break in time, from other sources we can determine that one event must be separated from another by a period of time. Modern writers do this every day.

Matthew’s narrative of the events which took place at the tomb is one such example. When the guards were frightened away by the appearance of the angel (Matthew 28:2-4), this is actually separate from the next event Matthew records of the angel appearing and speaking to the women who came to the tomb (Matthew 28:5-8). As we shall see, there is good reason to believe "gaps" exist between the events recorded in this passage.

In brief, there are "unidentified breaks" or "unspoken breaks" in Matthew’s narrative. What proof is there that Matthew compressed events here and is not describing every occurrence that took place at and around the empty tomb? The answer is that if it can be shown that Matthew compresses events in other portions of his Gospel, then we must hold open the possibility that he did the same in this portion of the Gospel, especially when the other Gospel writers supply the missing information.

To cite one illustration of Matthew compressing his story elsewhere, let’s compare Matthew’s account of the events identified as Jesus’ Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem and the cleansing of the temple with Mark’s account of the same events.

Here is the order of events as given by Matthew and Mark:

In summary, even though these occurred over three days, Matthew’s narrative reads as if they took place on only two days.

Matthew’s narrative, at first glance, leads us to think that on day one Jesus enters triumphantly into Jerusalem and on the same day, cleanses the temple. It is only when we read Mark’s account, that we see Matthew has compressed the details.

What did he leave out? On day one Matthew skips the night’s rest Jesus had in Bethany after His Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem. Matthew does not report, "The next day Jesus again went into Jerusalem from Bethany and at that time cleansed the temple." He simply goes on in his account and describes Jesus cleansing the temple immediately after His Triumphal Entry. There is no pause or break in his narrative, but the unidentified breaks must be recognized.

Otherwise, someone reading Matthew’s account might conclude there is a contradiction between Matthew and Mark. But Matthew did not say, "All of these events happened on two specific chronological days"; rather, he is reporting events he chooses to without mentioning what specific time, or what specific day, they occurred. Only when we compare Matthew’s account with Mark do we see that these events are spread out over a three-day period of time.

Matthew’s compressing of the events helps us understand that there may be periods of time in between the events described of which Matthew is giving us no details. If we understand how Matthew compresses events in his narrative throughout his Gospel, it will help us answer the questions, "How many angels were at the tomb?" and "Were the angels inside or outside the tomb?" The only way we will know what happened in the periods of time Matthew does not record is to read the account of the other Gospel writers.

Obviously, Matthew did not record the angel going into the tomb. But it is clear from the other Gospel accounts that after the angel appeared and frightened the guards away, he proceeded into the tomb. It is also clear that another angel appeared in the tomb with him.

What does Luke tell us about the location of the angels? Luke records that there are two angels who are inside the tomb. He further records that the two men suddenly appeared beside the women. Critics say this conflicts with the account in Mark which says that when the women entered the tomb they saw an angel "sitting on the right side."

We need to recognize:

We should also keep in mind since we are dealing with angels, unlike men, angels can make themselves visible or invisible at will.

The Greek word for "standing" may clear up the problem of the two descriptions given about the angels’ positions. According to Arndt and Gingrich, in their authoritative A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, the standard lexicon concerning the Greek words in the New Testament, the word Luke uses in Luke 24:4 that is translated "stood by" (epestesan), can also be translated "came upon" or "appeared." In Luke 2:9 we read, "An angel of the Lord appeared [This is the same word used in Luke 24:4 about the angels] to them, and the glory of the Lord shown round about them." Therefore, Luke is probably stressing the suddenness of the angels’ appearing, and Mark only tells us that when they appeared they were seated, a position that would be calculated to put the women at ease.

Cambridge graduate John Wenham agrees with this:

The critics claim that John’s account of the angels conflicts with Matthew, Mark and Luke in that the two angels are seated, one at the head and the other at the foot of where Jesus had lain (John 20:12).

The critics are right. Two angels speak to Mary from inside the tomb at the locations stated. However, the critics are wrong in claiming this is the same event described by Matthew, Mark or Luke. Why? Because a careful reading of the text clearly proves this.

John and Mark apparently both agree that Mary Magdalene was the first person Jesus appeared to (Mark 16:9; John 20:14). Yet, according to Mark’s account, Jesus must have appeared to Mary sometime other than when her companions, Mary the mother of James and Salome, came to the tomb early Easter Sunday morning (Mark 16:2). Reading Mark 16:2, it sounds as if Mary was with her companions, but it brings up the question, "How could Mark say Mary Magdalene was the first to see Jesus if her companions were with her?" The answer is that Jesus appeared to Mary at her second visit to the tomb, not her first.

Mark states they all came to the tomb early Sunday morning. If we assume Mary arrived earlier than her companions, there is no contradiction in what Mark and John are saying. Mary probably arrived early and intended to wait for her friends. But after she arrived, she noticed the stone was rolled away and the tomb was empty; she immediately set off to tell Peter and John (John 20:1, 2).

Meanwhile, her companions, the other Mary and Salome, arrived at the tomb and the angels appeared to them (Mark 16:1). The lead angel tells them to report the good news to the disciples that Jesus has risen from the dead. The women leave. A short time later Peter and John arrive after hearing the news from Mary that the tomb was empty.

Mary follows Peter and John back to the tomb, although she trails behind them. (Notice, because she had run from the tomb to tell the apostles, she was already tired; also, the apostles themselves ran to the tomb after she told them it was empty. John even outran Peter (John 20:2,4).

By the time Mary returns to the tomb, Peter and John have already left (John 20:10). All alone Mary stands in front of the tomb, begins to cry, and then looks into the tomb, whereupon she sees two angels, one seated where Jesus’ head had been, the other seated where Jesus’ feet had been. Then Jesus appears to her.

We must remember that both Matthew and Mark are dealing with the same event. But neither writer is obligated to include every detail.

Mark simply refers to the fact that there is an angel the women encounter sitting on the right side who proceeds to give them a message. Mark compresses the story here as Matthew has done in places in his account. Luke, on the other hand, supplies more details about this event. He states in addition to the angel that speaks, there is a second angel present. Apparently the second angel does not say anything.

Concerning the number of angels recorded by Luke (two) and Matthew and Mark (one) Wenham states:

In conclusion, even though Matthew, Mark and Luke have recorded differing details concerning the number of angels and their activities, the accounts do not contradict. Rather, they are complementary. Again, this does not show collusion but rather truthfulness in reporting. The writers have merely reported the events selectively, as all writers do.

21. Is Hugh J. Schonfield correct in his theory called THE PASSOVER PLOT?

(See Q. 23)

22. Why does Schonfield believe the angels were simply invented by Christians and falsely put into the story of the empty tomb?

(See Q. 23)

In his infamous book, The Passover Plot, Hugh J. Schonfield claims the Resurrection accounts evolved and were later doctored by editors. According to Schonfield, Jesus never rose. Mary Magdalene and others falsely concluded Christ had resurrected on purely circumstantial grounds, not evidential ones.

Schonfield speculates that the story of the angels may have evolved as a way of giving divine credence to the story of the empty tomb:

Further, Schonfield argues that in his view this man was the one who gave the potion to Jesus at the cross. The same man allegedly helped take Jesus’ body to the tomb and later moved the body.

Schonfield states:

24. What six false assumptions did Schonfield make in THE PASSOVER PLOT?

Second, Mary never expected to see Jesus. She would never have identified the gardener, an unknown stranger, as her beloved Lord and Master when she did not expect to see Jesus. Thus, the record shows that even when Mary saw Jesus, she had a hard time believing it was He (John 20:14-15). She knew Jesus was dead. And absolutely no one mistakes a complete stranger for a well-known friend, especially when they have just attended the funeral of that same friend.

Third, Schonfield’s assumptions that an unknown man or men could somehow remove Jesus’ body from a guarded tomb without being noticed would have been impossible (Matthew 27:65-66).

Fourth, we have already seen that the strange "young man" inside the tomb was really an angel. Luke himself tells us the men were, in fact, angels by describing them as having clothes "that gleamed like lightning." Also, the women’s response of fear and bowing their heads would have been inappropriate if they thought that only some strange man was inside the tomb.

Would merely an empty tomb without the Resurrection appearances have been sufficient evidence to convert the skeptical and downtrodden disciples to a belief that Jesus had risen from the dead? The simple fact is that it not only took the empty tomb, but more importantly, the numerous Resurrection appearances to convince them. The church could never have started with only an unexplained empty tomb.

His theory demands that we believe all of the disciples were so anxious to accept the idea of the Resurrection (which the evidence itself denies; for example, the disciples were skeptics) that they never even bothered to carefully check out the facts.

To resolve this problem, first, we will cite Matthew, Mark and Luke’s accounts, noting the critics’ charges for each. After this, we will show why Matthew, Mark and Luke do not contradict one another. The Apostle John does not record this event.

Matthew 28:5-8—

The critics claim this account conflicts with the accounts given by the other two Gospel writers who mention this event. Matthew has one angel delivering a message to the women, who are then supposed to give that message to the disciples only. The critics claim this is different from the account in Mark where "Peter" is also mentioned and in Luke where two angels deliver a message without any mention that it is to be delivered to the disciples. Further, the response of the women in Matthew differs from that in Mark and Luke.

Mark 16:5-8—

The critics claim that Mark’s description of one angel instructing the women to inform the disciples and Peter conflicts with Matthew who does not mention Peter. Further, in Mark’s account the angel says, "There you will see him, just as he told you," which is different from what the angel says in Matthew. What then was the exact message given by the angel? Finally, Luke proceeds to contradict both Matthew and Mark by stating that not one angel but two angels delivered the message:

Luke 24:3-9—

27. Does Luke ADD words to the original message given by the angels?

The critics claim that Luke’s message is altogether different from that supplied by Matthew and Mark. For example, in Luke the angels say, "Why do you look for the living among the dead?" But Matthew and Mark do not even record this. Further, the angels in Luke also quote a statement by Jesus concerning His Resurrection: "Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again’" (Luke 24:6b-7). This too was never mentioned by Matthew or Mark.

We must keep in mind that the angels did give one complete message. We shall give the angels’ message in its entirety at the end of this section. Thus, the full speech and all the details which were given by the angels for the disciples should first be pictured as a whole. The authors chose to record parts of that message which they thought important. In other words, the three writers are giving bits and pieces of that speech as they heard it from the eyewitnesses or people who knew the eyewitnesses.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that their accounts will differ slightly in length of material and emphasis, but in writing their accounts the way they do, they are not in conflict with each other in what they report. No one can demand that Luke must give a word-for-word report of the angels’ message any more than the Vice President must give a literal word-for-word report from a Cabinet member to the President. There are enough of the exact words given that agree with Matthew and Mark’s account for us to know it is the same message. Luke’s emphasis differs from the other two writers on Galilee but the thrust is the same. Jesus will go before the disciples into Galilee since He has risen.

Even so, the message of the angels as recorded both by Matthew and Mark is strikingly similar. The only difference between them is that Mark includes a specific reference to the Apostle Peter. Why is Mark the only author who records the message of the angels was to be told specifically to Peter? Because Mark was Peter’s friend and traveling companion, most of his Gospel was derived from Peter’s eyewitness testimony of the events. Therefore, it is natural to find this additional information concerning Peter in his friend Mark’s record. Peter apparently conveyed to Mark how wonderful it was that Jesus would have the angel specifically mention that he, Peter, should be told that Christ was risen and wanted to see him.

This mention of Peter in Mark’s account and a slight variation in wording are the only differences between Matthew and Mark. In both accounts the angels mention that Jesus was crucified, that He is not in the tomb, that He has risen; both point out the place where He was laid and is now absent; both urge the women to go tell His disciples; both mention that the risen Jesus is going ahead of them into Galilee; and both mention that Jesus had predicted His own Resurrection in advance.

But the critics proceed to charge that Luke has an entirely different message altogether. Some have claimed that Luke actually added words to the angels’ message that they never said. Luke records the words, "Why do you look for the living among the dead?" (Luke 24:5), something not mentioned by Matthew and Mark (Matthew 28:5-7; Mark 16:6-7). Luke also states, "He is not here, but he has risen" (Luke 24:6). Both Matthew and Mark agree with Luke and include this statement.

Luke continues, "Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified, and the third day be raised again’" (Luke 24:6b,7).

Matthew and Mark do not record these words. However, this does not mean the angel did not say this. Even though Matthew and Mark do not record the angel saying these words, they agree with Luke that Jesus said them. These same words are found to be stated by Jesus in the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke: "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him and on the third day He will be raised to life" (Matthew 17:22-23, cf. Luke 9:22; Mark 8:31).

In another prediction of Jesus he records, "From that time Jesus Christ began to show his disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day" (Matthew 16:21).

Mark also agrees with Matthew that Jesus said the words quoted by the angels. In Mark 8:31 we read, "And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again." Luke says the same (Luke 9:22).

The critics claim that Matthew and Mark contradict Luke’s message concerning Galilee. In the first two Gospels the disciples are told to go to Galilee in order to see Jesus there. But in Luke the angels do not mention that Jesus will appear to the disciples in Galilee, but only that it was in Galilee that He predicted His Resurrection.

Did the angels say that Jesus would meet the disciples in Galilee—or that He just wanted them to remember that was where He predicted He would resurrect from the dead?

Matthew and Mark both record the angels quoting Jesus’ exact words He gave to His disciples in Galilee before His trial, crucifixion and death. Both Matthew and Mark state that when He was in Galilee, Jesus said to His disciples, "But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee" (Matthew 26:32; Mark 14:28).

Now, after the crucifixion Matthew records the angels’ message of instruction to the disciples this way, "Go quickly and tell His disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see Him. Now I have told you’" (Matthew 28:7).

Mark records the angels’ message as, "But go, tell His disciples and Peter He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see Him, just as He told you" (Mark 16:7).

Luke apparently knows the angels are quoting Jesus’ exact words He gave His disciples in Galilee. Instead of quoting those words, Luke simply refers to them and their meaning by reporting the angels saying, "Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee." If they did remember, they would have known exactly what Matthew and Mark said, namely, "He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee."

Mark probably heard the reference to Galilee straight from Peter’s preaching of what the angels had said. Because their words are almost the same, Matthew might have (1) also heard the message from Peter and (2) as an apostle, he might have heard the message himself. In other words, the different rendition concerning Galilee found in Luke’s account is due merely to Luke’s own emphasis.

Remember, there is no necessity for Luke giving a word-for-word rendition of what the angel said. He might have heard the exact words and realized their importance and signified it by referring his readers back to what Jesus said in Galilee. When one looks at what Jesus said in Galilee, it was exactly the message that Matthew and Mark record concerning what the angel declared, "He is going before you into Galilee."

Did Luke give enough correct information so his readers would understand what was meant? Yes. Luke records the angels’ message in such a way that his readers would remember back to Jesus’ prediction of His death and Resurrection and His promise to meet His disciples in Galilee.

Is Luke wrong in taking such liberty with the angels’ words? Does anyone else ever report an event and place their own emphasis upon that event? All of us do this every day.

Most of us watch the evening news at night. When the Columbia space shuttle disintegrated and the seven astronauts died, we flipped from channel to channel and caught a different account of the same terrible event. Different words were used and even different facts were added or omitted. But did such differences cause us to conclude the disaster never happened, and the astronauts didn’t die?

If one network news team added new information, or gave a slightly different emphasis to their report, did we assume that the different accounts given by the different network teams couldn’t be harmonized? No! And the same is true for these Gospel accounts. When one writer gives additional information or places his own emphasis on one part of the story and reasonable attempts at harmonization successfully blend together, no contradiction can be assumed.

Selective reporting is just that; it is selective according to the author’s purpose. John doesn’t even mention these words of the angels’ message. Are we then to assume the event never happened? Certainly we must grant the same courtesy to the biblical authors that we do to modern secular writers who select appropriate material and edit it as they see fit. The key issue is not what was omitted but rather, is what was said truthful?

In conclusion, it is clear that the Gospel writers do not contradict one another in their recording of the angels’ message. If we combine the messages given in the different Gospel accounts, it is easy to reconstruct the original message given by the lead angel:

Again, each writer has merely selected the part of the angels’ message which best suited his purpose.

The critics also claim that the responses of the women in these accounts are contradictory. Matthew says the women "ran to tell his disciples" about the empty tomb (Matthew 28:8); but Mark records, "And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid" (Mark 16:8). Critics claim that Luke contradicts Matthew and Mark when he says, "...they told all this to the Eleven and to all the rest" (Luke 24:9).

Mark records that after hearing the angels’ message the women "said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." Does Luke contradict Mark by recording that, "returning from the tomb they [the women] told all this to the Eleven and to all the rest" (Mark 16:8; Luke 24:9)? Did the women tell or not tell?

Once again, when the accounts are combined and time is factored in, the "problem" disappears. It is true that at first, before they reached the apostles, the women said nothing to anyone because they were afraid. Each of us would have been as well.

Since we are dealing with a specific period of time (the time it took the women to go from the tomb to find the apostles) there is no reason why the women could not have first responded with fear, and then after their fear "subsided," told the disciples what had happened. This is why they were silent and told no one until they reached the safety and security of the apostles. Then they delivered their message.

By implication, this was also the instruction of the angels’ message. "Go tell the apostles" implies that the apostles should be the first to hear the message. If an angel gives one party specific instruction to give a vital message to another party, the first party does not stop and gossip along the way.

But it would be incredible to think that, having received the instruction of the angels specifically to go tell the disciples about the Resurrection, the women would never tell anyone throughout the rest of their entire lives. Mark is simply emphasizing that they were scared, and it took them a while to "collect themselves" before they would obey the specific instruction of the angels to tell the apostles. That they did tell the apostles is obvious, for the Gospels record the apostles’ reaction to the women’s message. Mark is simply emphasizing the women were scared and they said nothing until they reached the disciples.

In conclusion, there is no contradiction in the basic content as given by all the Gospel writers. Each writer has recorded the "basics" of the angels’ message. Neither is there a contradiction in the women’s response to the message.

John K. Naland criticizes the accounts and supplies us his own interpretation of the events:

The idea that Matthew and Luke wrote the Gospels with a copy of Mark in front of them, implying collusion, is the bankrupt assumption made by liberal critics today. What evidence exists to substantiate their assumption?

Notice, the critics claim the accounts are so different that contradictions can clearly be seen. But then all of a sudden they tell us the accounts are so similar that collusion can be seen. The critics can’t have it both ways. If the accounts are too similar, the critics cry "collusion!" If the accounts are too divergent, they cry "contradiction!"

If the writers copied from one source, then we must give them credit for not being so foolish as to deliberately contradict each other. The critics who say they all copied from one source, Mark, must explain why differences exist.

Anyone who reads the accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luke finds that they are sufficiently divergent to indicate independent research, reporting and writing. There is no evidence of either collusion or contradiction.

Further, Naland and other critics claim the account of the angels is merely a "literary device," an attempt to "dispel confusion" concerning conflicting accounts by having the angels introduce an authoritative message. But this is pure conjecture on the critic’s part.

There is absolutely no difference between Naland’s suggested "literary device" and blatant deception. If Jesus really didn’t rise physically from the dead, why would the disciples have invented a story about angels proclaiming an event (the Resurrection) no one believed had happened in the first place? Were the writers so deluded that in their weakened state they pathetically made up stories of nonexistent events to "confirm" their own pathological hallucinations of a non-risen Jesus? Such assumptions are absurd, especially when what the Gospel writers wrote harmonizes beautifully.

The seeming contradiction between John and Matthew and Mark can be resolved by assuming all the women were to meet together at the tomb and were on their way when the events happened. Therefore, Matthew and Mark are correct in referring to them as a group on their way to the tomb. If Mary arrived a bit earlier than the rest, then John’s account is correct. If the stone was rolled away and Mary looked in and found the tomb empty, it would be reasonable to conclude that she would leave immediately to tell Peter and John. This is what the Apostle John says happened.

32. If Jesus appeared to Mary first (Mark 16:9), why is it that after informing Peter and John, she stays at the tomb and begins to weep?

(See Q. 33)

These questions are answered if we follow Mary’s journey after she meets Peter and John. When Mary finds John and Peter, they start off for the tomb (John 20:3). Mary lags behind. Peter and John reach the tomb, look in, see the grave clothes lying where Jesus’ body was laid. John believes. They both leave the tomb (John 20:10). Finally, Mary reaches the tomb.

By the time she arrives, the disciples have already left, and she has not been told what Peter and John have concluded. Up to this point she has not seen any angels or the Lord. So she stands by the tomb all alone and in frustration begins to weep.

She looks into the tomb. At that point, the angels appear to Mary and ask her why she is weeping. She replies, "They’ve taken the Lord out of the tomb and we don’t know where they’ve put him."

Luke records the appearance of Jesus on the road to Emmaus seven miles away from Jerusalem (Luke 24:13-36). The two men in his account return to Jerusalem only to discover the people present already believe in the Resurrection. The people are saying, "It is true! The Lord is risen and has appeared to Simon" (Luke 24:34). At that point the two men who had just returned tell of their own experience with the risen Jesus on the road to Emmaus.

Which account is correct? Did the disciples believe in the Resurrection or not believe it? First, we need to understand that the persons exclaiming, "The Lord has risen and has appeared to Peter" were not the apostles themselves. They were the "others who were with them" who came to inform the apostles that Christ was resurrected (Luke 24:33). These other individuals had believed in the Resurrection because they had just witnessed Christ personally. But the ones they were telling this to in the room had not yet seen Jesus and therefore did not believe them.

Mark’s appendix agrees with the Apostle John that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9; John 20:14). Mark then records Mary went and reported to the disciples that she had been with Jesus while she was mourning and weeping at the tomb.

What was the reaction of those who heard Mary? Mark tells us in Mark 16:11, "And when they heard that he [Jesus] was alive, and had been seen by her, they [the disciples] refused to believe it."

Next, Mark records Jesus’ appearance to the two men walking in the country along the road to Emmaus. These men return to Jerusalem and report to the others. What happened to Mary happened to these two men. Mark records, "They [the disciples] did not believe them either" (Mark 16:13).

If we carefully examine what Luke says about these events, we will see he agrees with Mark. Luke records that after the two men recognized Jesus on the road to Emmaus, "They returned to Jerusalem, and found gathered together the Eleven and those who were with them, saying, ‘The Lord has really risen, and has appeared to Simon.’"

The key issue is: Who is Luke speaking about when he says, "And those who were with them"? This reference must be to Mary (Mark 16:10-11) whom they had earlier refused to believe and probably the other women who had seen the angels and the resurrected Lord (Matthew 28:5-10).

Luke only tells us the Eleven were "listening" to those people who had come to them, who were with them and testifying, "The Lord has really risen." Nowhere in Luke’s account does he say the Eleven actually believed what the others were telling them. How do we know this?

There is clear evidence that indicates the eleven disciples did not yet believe in the Resurrection. While this entire group is gathered together, Jesus Himself appears to them and rebukes them for doubting His Resurrection. Luke records, "they [the Eleven] were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost" (Luke 24:37). Jesus encourages all of them to "Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." And even then, Luke records, "They still did not believe it because of joy and amazement" (v. 41).

Mark records these words, "Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after He had risen" (Mark 16:14).

By now it should be obvious that most of these questions are answered simply by constructing a plausible sequence of events that shows the accounts do not contradict each other. We would like you to consider this account given by Noval Geldenhuys which is just one of many reconstructions that answers many of these questions:

But even though most of the apparent problems can be resolved by supplying a chronological sequence of events, we must remember there are times when this is impossible simply because we do not have sufficient information.

As Geldenhuys observes, the Gospels are primarily accounts of the apostles’ preaching about Jesus. They are not complete biographies. Because of this fact, we are not entitled to demand that they supply us with an exact, detailed, and chronologically connected narrative of all the various events they discuss. Geldenhuys writes:

We must remember that there were at least twelve separate appearances of Jesus after His Resurrection from the dead. Michael Green succinctly outlines the major Resurrection appearances for us:

Now in answering the critics’ questions concerning these Resurrection appearances, let us remember that the mere fact that Jesus appears in different places to different people is hardly a contradiction in itself. On any given day, each one of us appears in different places to different people. Given these twelve Resurrection appearances which took place in various locations to numerous individuals and groups, it should not be surprising that four independent writers would select some details and not others.

The first thing apparent is that all four accounts do agree that the Resurrection did, in fact, happen. Second, these accounts give every evidence of frank and honest reporting. There is no cover-up, and even the doubts and skepticism of the apostles themselves are laid bare as part of the record. If the disciples had wanted to make up stories, they would have left out these unflattering remarks about themselves.

If four contemporary TV reporters covered similar events, what problems would they face that were also faced by those writing the Resurrection accounts?

If four reporters covered a key battle during the war in Vietnam, or filed reports on the election results and key political speeches made by leaders in East and West Germany, or covered a serious airplane accident involving three airplanes which landed in two different locations (including weather reports), or wrote reports on a Presidential visit to twelve European cities, each of these four reporters would select different material, emphasize what he thought was really important, and leave out what he did not have time to report or judged was not as important as other material. If this is true for contemporary reporters, why is it that the accounts of the four Gospel writers concerning twelve Resurrection appearances would be any different?

If there merely appeared to be a contradiction between the accounts of our contemporary newsmen, would we not assume that no contradictions existed because of the many different details involved? And finally, wouldn’t we assume our own lack of knowledge of the events covered and in light of that, not accuse them of lying for seeming contradictions merely because we cannot resolve them immediately?

Concerning the different locations in which the accounts say Jesus appeared, how can these be resolved to remove any charge of contradiction or error? Lilly discusses the problem and supplies plausible answers for why Jesus made the appearances He did:

Lilly proceeds to discuss the manner in which each apostle’s method and purpose accounts for the material included or deleted:

Now we shall examine some of these same criticisms as presented by contemporary critics.

37. Do the Resurrection accounts involve clearly contradictory historical traditions as critics such as John K. Naland maintain?

Hugh J. Schonfield in his book, The Passover Plot, is another critic who claims the accounts conflict. He writes:

Should Jesus be limited to appearing in only one location?

The Apostle John records about one of the appearances of Jesus, "This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead" (John 21:14). Luke records in his second book, Acts, that "He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3). From these two authors we can see that there were many separate appearances of Jesus to the disciples. Isn’t it a little absurd to demand Jesus appear in the same location over a 40-day period?

Matthew not only gives a Galilean appearance (Matthew 28:16), but he gives a Jerusalem one as well (Matthew 28:9). John has both Jerusalem and Galilee appearances (John 20 and 21). Luke certainly gives Jerusalem appearances but in his second book, Acts, he shows he is not unaware of Jesus’ other appearances in different places over a 40-day period. Mark records the message of the angels, "Go tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going before you into Galilee. There you will see him....’" (Mark 16:7). In brief, the evidence goes against Naland and Schonfield’s assertion that there are rival traditions.

If the critics force Matthew and Luke to say Jesus could only appear in Jerusalem or Galilee, then of course, they would contradict each other. But neither of them sets limits on Jesus’ appearances, nor demands by what they say that Jesus cannot appear in some other geographical location.

Michael Green shows that each of the authors did not place Jesus’ Resurrection appearances in only one geographical location:

The following citation in the Gospels illustrates that the writers were anything but uncertain saying where and when Jesus appeared. Mark says in 16:9, "Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene." The Apostle John agrees. John 20:14 says, "She turned around and beheld Jesus standing there...." Verse 18 says, "Mary Magdalene came announcing to the disciples, ‘I have seen the Lord’ and that He had said these things to her." In brief, both Mark and John agree.

Also, as we have already shown, there is no contradiction between Luke’s account of Jesus’ appearance to the two men on the road to Emmaus and the same event recorded in Mark 16:12-13.

No one contradicts John’s clear depiction of Jesus’ appearance to the Apostle Thomas in John 20:26-31.

Luke in Acts 1:3 asserts Jesus presented Himself over a period of 40 days to His apostles. From reading all of the accounts, Jesus’ appearances fit in well with these words.

In 1 Corinthians 15:5 Paul says, "He appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the Twelve." This fits in nicely with Mark 16:2-8 where we find the angels instructing the women to tell Peter and the disciples Jesus "is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He said to you." Both of these accounts agree with what Luke says in 24:34, "The Lord has really risen, and has appeared to Simon." Another appearance is recorded in John 21:15, where "Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon, Son of John, do you love me more than these?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.’"

Peter himself is adamant in declaring in his own epistle, "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty" (2 Peter 1:16).

40. If Jesus really appeared to the disciples, why did they go fishing?

(See Q. 41)

41. If Jesus really appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem, why would He have to appear to them again in Galilee?

Initially, some of the disciples did not believe in the resurrected Jesus, even after He first appeared to them (Matthew 28:17). If some were skeptical and doubted what their own eyes had seen, it is very reasonable to assume that they would have retired to such an activity as fishing to try and sort things out. Even those disciples who saw and believed would be shaken by the implications.

Why would Jesus appear to the disciples in Jerusalem and at other times in Galilee?

There are many possible reasons why. First, perhaps Jesus might simply have had a lot to tell the disciples as the Scriptures imply (John 16:12; Luke 24:27, 45). Second, the disciples might have needed the time between appearances to digest and think through what Jesus was telling them. Third, Jesus may have wanted to appear in other locations to other disciples not present at the time He appeared in geographical areas closer to Jerusalem.

In the four Gospels we are told of eleven apostles and a large number of other disciples of Jesus who lived in other towns and places. It is obvious that not every disciple was in Jerusalem when Jesus first appeared. It seems Jesus appeared to some disciples first in order to instruct them to inform others of the next time and place He would appear. How else would they have known? That’s why some of the disciples who were in Jerusalem may have gone on to Galilee, not only to meet Him there, but to tell others that He would be there.

Bishop Spong claims the Gospel writers conflict because they do not describe Jesus the same way in every appearance. He asserts:

One sometimes wonders at the extent to which intelligent men will go to find contradictions in the Scriptures. The "issue" Bishop Spong has raised here is not even an issue. There is no reason why Christ could not have gone to heaven several times throughout the 40-day period of His appearances