The Resurrection Appearances

The Resurrection Appearances

The Documents Available

Before looking at the evidence for the resurrection and examining the eye witness and second hand accounts we should put ourselves in the historical situation of the 1st century Christians. In approaching the biblical documents, or any other similar ancient document - such as Tacitus` History of Rome (115AD) - we ought to come to the text with an understanding attitude. This doesn't mean assuming the text to be 100% accurate in all respects. But we ought to ask the right questions of the text.

In the first century much less writing took place than does now. Many people were unable to read, and only a very select few were actually able to right. The papyrus or parchment (leather) was very expensive. Anyone wishing to commit anything to paper would have had a very good reason to do so. The incentive to fabricate was not as it is today. Very high regard was given to writing and the luxury to create fictional material was virtually non-existent. There was no such thing as a novel or a newspaper, although there was limited artistic writing such as poetry. The Bible, however, was written to communicate and preserve truth - spiritual and historical.

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." Luke 1v1-4

This beginning of Luke's gospel is typical of the approach taken to writing at this time. Why go to the painstaking trouble involved in committing anything to paper unless there is a supremely worthwhile cause.

How can we know anything historically?

There is, of course, no "scientific" proof that Mary 1st was Queen of England in the 16th Century. We cannot recreate her, bring her back to life or reproduce the experiment.

However, we can say with a high degree of probability that Mary was indeed the Queen. We can do this through appealing to historical evidence. Many people saw her. We have some writings about her, and various protraits. . But none of this "proves", scientifically that Mary ever lived or was the Queen.

The kind of evidence used in historical research is the same used in a court of law. In a courtroom case certain kinds of evidences are appealed to in order to determine what exactly happened, eyewitnesses are questioned, motives are examined, and physical evidence is scrutinized such as fingerprints or journal writings.

As a general rule the longer ago an event occurred the less historical evidence will still be available. For example, we don't still have the witnesses who saw Jesus alive to question them. We don't have the physical cross that Jesus was crucified on and we do not have any of the tables or chairs he made whilst working as a carpenter. In addition, the longer ago an event occurred the more rudimentary and basic their recording mechanisms were - there were no video recorders, CCTV, DNA sampling, etc It's therefore not surprising that all the evidence we have for Jesus' resurrection is in the form of ancient documents - by the very nature of fact that is all that ever could have been available.

The evidence we have for Christ's life, death, and resurrection is not as great as that for Mary the 1st, nor as recent. But it is better than we have that Plato ever lived, or Homer, or many historical figures that we take for granted.

The Resurrection Appearances

A great number of resurrection appearances are recorded in the New Testament. There is no complete agreement by the various commentators on precisely how many different appearances Jesus made to his disciples. Some a clearly first hand accounts from eye witnesses. Others are second hand accounts which have been researched and documented. Others are just mentioned in passing. All of them are of considerable value and are worth studying independently.

Easter Sunday Jerusalem Appearances

[1] The Garden Tomb - Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene outside the tomb (Mk 16:9; Jn 20:11)

[2] The Garden Tomb - To Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (the mother of James the Younger and Joses - Mk 16:1) as they hurry from the tomb (Mt 28:8)

[3] The Garden Tomb - To Peter (Lk 24:34; "Cephas" in 1Co 15:5)

[4] The Road to Emmaus - To two disciples on the Emmaus road later in the day (Mk 16:12; Lk 24:13)

[5] The Upper Room - To the apostles in a house in Jerusalem (Luke 24:36; Jn 20:19). Possibly the Upper Room where the Last Supper was held; Thomas was absent according to John 20:24.

A Week Later

[6] The Upper Room - To the eleven apostles, including Thomas in a house; probably the same house as [5] (Jn 20:26; possibly Mk 16:14)

Over the following weeks in the Galilee area

[7] The apostles go to Galilee (Mt 28:16a); there Jesus appears to seven of them fishing on the Sea of Galilee (Jn 21:1)

[8] Jesus appears to the apostles on a mountain and gives his great commission to preach the Gospel to the world (Mt 28:16b)

[9] More than 500 disciples in Galilee (1Co 15:6)

[10] To James, his brother (1Co 15:7)

On The Ascension Day

[11] To the apostles on the Mount of Olives (Olivet), near Bethany, as he ascends to Heaven (Lk 24:50, Acts 1:12)

After the Ascension

[12] To Stephen as he is stoned to death in Jerusalem (Ac 7:55)

[13] To Paul on the road to Damascus (Ac 9:3; 26:13; 1Co 15:8)

[14] To John in a vision on the island of Patmos (Rev 1:10)

Whilst I would strongly urge you to read each of the above accounts and reflect upon it there is, however, one text that I think deserves some closer scrutiny here.

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."
1 Corinthians 15v3-8.

1 Corinthians is not doubted to be the handiwork of Paul the apostle sometime after His experience of Christ. However, here Paul records a creed that is generally agreed to be from a much earlier time than when the epistle was written. It is generally agreed that Paul received this creed from Peter and James 3 to 5 years after the crucifiction of Christ.

What is of particular importance here is the reference to over 500 witnesses. Why did Paul write this to a Church that was around at the same time as many of these witnesses were still alive? The inference is clear; if you don't believe me or the other apostles - go and ask these witnesses - there's plenty of them! You just wouldn't write such a thing about the witnesses unless it were true - as it was easy for the readers of the letter to check it out.

Therefore we can be confident that in addition to the 4 or 5 direct eyewitnesses we have recorded in the New Testament, and the numerous second hand accounts that there were also a large number of other witnesses out there at the time. Sadly their own observations and experiences will not be available to us (this side of heaven!), but nevertheless we can be sure that they also saw the resurrected Christ.

The Women Saw Jesus First

One of the frequently missed facts about the witness testimony of the New Testament is that the women were the first to see the resurrected Jesus. (Jn 20:11-17; Lk 24:1-9; Mrk 16:1-8; Mt 28:1-7). In the first century women had no legal power as witnesses in a court of law. A woman's testimony was unacceptable. Why? Women were not treated as equals and were generally felt to be untrustworthy. It is therefore highly significant that women were the first to see Jesus.

Why? If the story is fabricated, why choose women, whose testimony no one would accept, to be the first witnesses? Instead of being a story concocted by the disciples for their own gain, it appears to be an historical record of what actually took place. This is equally true of the other inconsistencies between the accounts (for example, the number of angels involved at the tomb). If you set out to concoct such a story you would have made sure that you did a better job than the evangelists actually did.

Changed Lives

A person may say one thing and yet do another. It is quite possible for people to lie, document those lies and stand consistently by them. This is particularly the case where people have much to gain from those lies. But the disciples had everything to loose from the resurrection of Christ. They were ridiculed, humiliated, beaten, persecuted and 10 of the original 11 were murdered for their faith (Peter was crucified in Rome. Paul was beheaded. And James was stoned to death, to name a few). Why persist with their story if they did not believe it to be 100% true?

After the crucifiction the disciples were broken men. Each had gone their own way and had not stayed around to watch Christ die - only the women. They met behind locked doors and were in fear. What could have changed them from frightened and broken men to preachers with radical boldness - prepared to proclaim the "good news" (what could be good if Jesus had not resurrected?) in the center of Jewish Jerusalem? They faced the toughest resistance possible to their new message and yet were still sufficiently convincing to cause many thousands to believe them within the space of one day. If Jesus did not genuinely resurrect then this is very hard to explain indeed.

• < Prev
• Next >