There is such a virtue as “healthy skepticism,” and it is often tragically overridden.  The unnamed prophet could have used a good dose of it when the old prophet lied to him (1 Kgs. 13, NASB).  The fact that the devil and his henchmen don suits of light implies its immense importance (2 Cor. 11:13,14).  On the other hand, “doubting Thomas” is hardly a suitable “poster-child” for its promotion.

Absent from Jesus’ first post-resurrection appearance to His apostles, and despite their assertions that they had seen the risen Lord, Thomas emphatically expressed his disbelief:  “Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe” (Jn. 20:24-29).  For this, he has been dubbed “doubting Thomas.”

 Yet, there have been those who have demanded that Didymus (cf. Jn. 11:16) deserves to be delivered from the sin and sobriquet of “doubt,” as if they were unfairly imposed on him.  They come to Thomas’ defense and seek to minimize, if not justify, his unbelief.  They insist that, if anything, Thomas ought to be commended, on the basis that he was only exhibiting the “healthy skepticism” which ought to prompt all people to withhold belief until they are given adequate evidence.

Thus, Bubba Garner is only the latest in a long line of those who contend that the popular conception of “doubting Thomas” should be reversed:  “It is not wrong to demand evidence. …  Before Thomas could consider himself ‘all in’ again, he wanted to see and handle the evidence.  The Lord does not ask His disciples to follow Him with a blind faith. …  Thomas’ request to examine the Lord was not an unreasonable one.  He simply wanted the same opportunity that was made available to the other apostles” (“A Reasonable Doubt?” The Auburn Beacon, January 11, 2015).

Yet, his revisionist call merely echoes the same sentiment in almost the same words sounded forty-three years ago by Herbert Lockyer, who devoted several pages to his effort to rehabilitate Thomas’ image:  “All he demanded was the same evidence they [i.e., the other apostles] had received ….  Surely such a characteristic of Thomas should be commended and not condemned! …  He simply desired to test all truth by evidence.  It was his sincerity which prompted him to stand aloof from the rest of the apostles until he had attained to personal conviction regarding the resurrection” (All the Apostles of the Bible, pg. 180).

John Clayton waxes even bolder in Thomas’ defense:  “Not only is this label of Thomas inaccurate and unfair, but it also fails to understand the real issue involved in doubt and how doubt can help us. …  When the other disciples came to Thomas with the preposterous claim that they had seen Jesus, what do you think his reaction should have been? …  There was good reason to question the claims. …  The kind of doubt that Thomas had was a healthy skepticism” (Does God Exist?, May/June 2000, pg. 5).

James Sanders, to say the least, is also less than unequivocal about Thomas’ guilt in doubting Jesus’ resurrection:  “The doubt of Thomas was the doubt of a man who had lost his Lord and Master.  It was the doubt of a man whose heart was torn with sorrow. …  Here is our lesson.  It is not wrong to doubt.  Because Thomas doubted, our faith is made stronger.  Some people believe everything and anything.  The apostles were not that way.  They were practical men” (Truth in Life series, Junior, Year 2, Book 1, pg. 41).

James Needham practically made Thomas the heroic centerpiece of his sermon, “The Value of Doubting”:  “But, first of all, I want to act, sort of, tonight, as a defender of Thomas.  I consider him my friend, and when my friends are attacked and deprecated, I defend them. …  So, I want to defend Thomas. …  Another commendable trait of Thomas is the fact that he was not gullible.  Thomas didn’t believe everything he heard, and I want to tell you that that is an outstanding trait of character, is to be doubtful of things that we hear about other people until we have some evidence. …  That’s Thomas.  Thomas said, ‘Except I see the nail prints in His hands and thrust my hand into His side where the Roman soldier pierced Him, I will not believe.’  Now some people think that was bad in Thomas to say that” (Beaufort, SC, October 21, 1978).

 It is certainly true that no one should believe reports of great consequence without adequate evidence, and it is for this very reason that the vindication of Thomas’ initial refusal to believe in Jesus’ resurrection warrants critical review.  Such a careful examination will indubitably reconfirm the historical notion that Thomas was wrong and is rightly condemned for his unbelief.  His doubt was neither reasonable, healthy, commendable, nor defensible.  This is obvious in view of four overwhelmingly compelling lines of evidence which Thomas had available to him for Jesus’ resurrection:

(1) He had the prophecies of the Old Testament to assure him that the Messiah would be killed but rise from the dead.  Jesus taught this (Lk. 18:31-34).  He said that the two men on the road to Emmaus were “foolish men” in being “slow of heart” to believe in what the prophets had said (Lk. 24:25-27).  After His resurrection, Jesus reminded His apostles that the Old Testament Scriptures had prophesied His resurrection (Lk. 24:44-46; cf. Psa. 16:10; Acts 2:25ff).  John said the Scripture said Jesus “must rise again from the dead” (Jn. 20:9).  Paul later said that Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3,4).

(2)  He had the repeated assurances of Jesus that He would rise from the dead on the third day (Matt. 16:21; 17:22,23; 20:17-19).  It was apparently common knowledge that Jesus had claimed He would rise on the third day (Matt. 27:62-66; Lk. 24:6-8,21).  Yet, Thomas simply chose not to believe Jesus Himself, despite the fact that he had been with Jesus for years, had heard His words and seen His miracles, and had himself been empowered to work miracles, including raising the dead (Matt. 10:5-8).  The report which the apostles made to Thomas and which he disbelieved was nothing more than that which Jesus Himself had foretold.  Thus, if Thomas was right to doubt the apostles’ report of Jesus’ resurrection, he was right to doubt Jesus’ promises to the same effect.

(3)  He had the testimony of three sets of witnesses that Jesus had risen from the dead:

   (a)  Mary Magdalene and the other women (Mk. 16:9-11),

   (b)  the two men on the road to Emmaus to whom Jesus appeared (Mk. 16:12,13; Lk. 24:13-35), and

   (c) the other ten apostles (Jn. 20:24,25).

(4) He had the evidence of the empty tomb (Jn. 20:1-10), which was enough to make a believer of John (vs. 8), and was regarded by others as significant evidence (Lk. 24:22-24).  On the day of Pentecost, even Peter alluded to the empty tomb as evidence of Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 2:29-32).  Yet, Thomas had eight days to examine the tomb, search for Jesus’ body, question witnesses, recollect Jesus’ words, reconsider Old Testament prophecy, and generally ponder the evidence, but, despite all of this, he clung to his unbelief (Jn. 20:24-27).  Why should the empty tomb be offered today as evidence of Jesus’ resurrection, if it rightly left Thomas unmoved to faith? 

In summary, Thomas did not just disbelieve that Jesus had been raised from the dead.  Broken down, this is really just another way of saying that he also did not believe the Scriptures, he did not believe at least seventeen eye-witnesses, he did not believe the empty tomb, and he did not believe Jesus!  If Thomas was right not to believe in Jesus’ resurrection because he had not seen Him risen, then every unbeliever is right for the same reason, and virtually every believer has been wrong!  “Doubting Thomas” is no hero; he is the skeptics’ main “go-to guy”!

Jesus nowhere gave Thomas the commendation which others give him.  Instead, He contrasted Thomas with others and implied his condemnation for his unbelief by pronouncing a blessing on the one who, unlike Thomas, does not require seeing in order to believe (Jn. 20:29).  It is inconceivable how Jesus’ statement could be construed as anything other than a rebuke of Thomas!  If He commended Thomas for not having believed until he saw, how could He bless those who believe despite not having seen?  If his refusal to believe in the risen Jesus until he had seen Him risen makes him virtuous for not being gullible, then the masses who have believed in Jesus’ resurrection without having seen Him risen must be gullible.

However, any thought that Thomas acted commendably by refusing to believe in Jesus’ resurrection is crushed under the weight of His rebuke of the apostles for not believing the witnesses who reported His resurrection.  After recording that the apostles refused to believe the reports of the risen Lord from Mary Magdalene and the two men on the road to Emmaus, Mark also wrote:  “And afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen” (16:9-14).  Jesus rebuked “the eleven,” which would include Thomas, for being so hard-hearted as not to believe the report of those who had seen Him resurrected.  Thus, how can Thomas be commended for doing precisely what Jesus condemned?  Furthermore, if the other apostles were wrong not to believe seven witnesses (at least five women and the two men on the road to Emmaus), how can Thomas be excused for not believing seventeen witnesses (these seven plus the other ten apostles)?

This stresses the seriousness of an ill-founded effort to raise and praise Thomas as a model of incredulity.  It is not enough to say that this is wrong or even obviously wrong.  No, it is much worse than that; it is also fraught with the most terribly consequential implications imaginable.  It attacks the very foundations of faith in Christ’s resurrection …” (cf. 1 Cor. 15:12-19).  It is hard to see any difference between the reason Thomas cited for his unbelief and that offered by unbelievers for their unbelief today.  If Thomas is to be commended as having acted virtuously for not believing seventeen eye-witnesses’ direct, oral testimony, on the basis that it was evidence inadequate to sustain a reasonable faith, then how can anyone hundreds, or even thousands, of years removed from the event be expected to believe the same claim in written testimony?

Some might rejoin that people have better evidence available to them today than that which Thomas had.  Really???  Is it to be believed that the direct, immediate evidence of Jesus’ resurrection Thomas had in the oral report of seventeen eye-witnesses, ten of them his close, personal friends, is to be perceived as less credible to him than that of the written report, now two thousand years old, of the eight New Testament writers, one of whom, and possibly two (Mark and Luke), never saw the risen Jesus themselves?  Why is it that direct, same-day, oral testimony from many long-time, intimate and trusted friends is to be deemed worthy of Thomas’ admirable rejection, but that same testimony, if committed to writing and read, becomes obligatory of faith thousands of years later on pain of hell?  No wonder Jesus pronounced a blessing on the one who, though not seeing, believes, rather than on Thomas, who also did not see but disbelieved!  Perhaps this is also why John immediately went on to say that he had not recorded the many other signs Jesus worked but that “… these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God …” (Jn. 20:30,31).  Thus, a defense of Thomas in this episode defends not only Thomas but, since then, also every unbeliever who has scorned the apostolic testimony of Jesus’ resurrection, as he did.  In short, if the evidence Thomas received for Jesus’ resurrection was not adequate, then adequate evidence since Jesus’ ascension has not existed. 

In the run-up to a defense of Thomas in this episode, he is sometimes extolled for the courage he supposedly displayed in calling on the other apostles to return with Jesus to Judea to die with Him (Jn. 11:16). Yet, this was the same claim all of the apostles made just before they ignominiously fled in fear when Jesus was arrested (Mk. 14:31,50). Thus, in the light of these later events, Thomas’ words seem more bravado than bravery.

Thomas’ proponents also obfuscate their error by confusing the requirements of discipleship with those of apostleship.  Since the apostles were to serve as special witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection, it was necessary for Thomas to see the risen Lord (Acts 10:40,41). However, he did not need to see the risen Lord to be a believer!  For that, he had the adequate testimony of credible eye-witnesses — exactly what every believer, and everyone expected to be a believer, has (Mk. 16:14).

In view of all of this, the elephant-in-the-room question which really cries out for an answer is, not whether Thomas was right not to believe, but, rather, how anyone, especially seasoned student of the Bible, could ever entertain the thought that he was.  Two possible explanations are worth contemplating for their instructional value:

(1) Whether it proceeds from the current over-emphasis on expository preaching or not, the Bible student might become so engrossed in what a single text offers that he does not consult other relevant, and especially parallel, texts.  “Doubting Thomas” is a topical study, and, as such, it cannot be responsibly conducted as if an examination of the primary text (Jn. 20:24-29) were all that is necessary to understanding it fully.  Careful attention to the other accounts of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances would have immediately exposed the fallacy of commending Thomas’ unbelief.

(2) Since it is doubtful that veteran preachers, who had probably read the final chapter of Mark hundreds of times among themselves, would have been unaware of what it says, the problem probably consists in something else.  There is a danger in the Bible student becoming so enthused or pleased with himself over the discovery of hitherto unknown or unappreciated ideas that he falls prey to incaution and, in this case, ironically, to the very credulity against which he seeks to warn others. The cause of truth is poorly served by inapt arguments, inapplicable texts, inappropriate examples, and inattentive listeners.

Indeed, Didymus does not deserve to be forever defined as “doubting Thomas” by one particularly sorry episode in his pre-Pentecost life.  Yet, his image does not need the cosmetic, reconstructive “touch-up” of human hands.  Under the Lord’s restoration, he went on to become “Triumphant Thomas” and to sit on one of Israel’s twelve thrones (Matt. 19:28) and ultimately with the Lord on His (Rev. 3:21).  This is enough.

------------------

A Reasonable Doubt?

by Bubba Garner

How would you like it if someone spoke about your life based on one thing you said or did?  Without any input from you, they chose a phrase or event that they thought best summed up how you should be remembered? That’s what we have with the apostle we often refer to as “doubting” Thomas. Even in nonreligious settings, wherever there is a dissenting voice or a lone skeptic, that person is called a “doubting Thomas.”

Thomas was not viewed that way by his fellow apostles.  According to John’s gospel, the only thing they called him was Didymus or “the Twin” (John 11:16, 20:24, 21:2).  Not only that, but when Jesus insisted that He and the apostles go to Jerusalem, a place where they were afraid for the Lord’s safety, it was Thomas who insisted, “Let us also go, that we may die with Him” (John 11:16).  In other words, if the enemies took Jesus, they would have to go through Thomas first.  Yet, no one ever refers to him as “fearless Thomas.”

His unfortunate nickname comes from the statement he later made after hearing about Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. “Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe” (John 20:25). Instead of casting doubt on his faith, what are some lessons we can learn that will help us in our own belief in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God?

It is not wrong to demand evidence.  As one of the chosen twelve, Thomas had been “all in” before.  Remember, he was prepared to fight to the death for Jesus.  When the Lord did die, the apostles were so convinced that the cause was over that the first report of His resurrection “appeared to them as nonsense” (Luke 24:11). Before Thomas could consider himself “all in” again, he wanted to see and handle the evidence.

The Lord does not ask His disciples to follow Him with a blind faith.  When Jesus appeared to Thomas, He did not withhold proof from him.  Rather, He invited careful investigation:  “Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing” (John 20:27). Luke also wrote about the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, that He “presented Himself alive...by many convincing proofs” (Acts 1:3). The truth has nothing to hide.  The more we look into it, the stronger our convictions become.

Each person must have their own faith. Thomas’ request to examine the Lord was not an unreasonable one.  He simply wanted the same opportunity that was made available to the other apostles.  A week earlier, Jesus appeared to them when Thomas was not present and “showed them both His hands and His side” (John 20:20). When they later told Thomas, “We have seen the Lord” (20:25), he didn’t just take their word for it.  He wanted to see it for himself. He wanted to have his own faith.

While we certainly learn about the gospel from other people, we must eventually reach the point where we stand on our own convictions. This very attitude is seen in the Queen of Sheba’s statement after testing the wisdom of Solomon. “It was a true report which I heard in my own land about your words and your wisdom. Nevertheless I did not believe the reports, until I came and my eyes had seen it.  And behold, the half was not told me” (1 Kings 10:6-7). How much more ready will we be to give an answer for our faith when we can reason from that which we have personally experienced?  No longer is it based on what our parents or our preacher knows. It is rooted in “for the Bible tells me so.”  It is our own.

Honest evaluation calls for a humble confession. Thomas asked to see all the evidence; Jesus held nothing back. There is no record of the apostle following through with his request to put his finger in the nail prints or his hand into the wounded side. What is recorded are the words he spoke: “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28)!  Having seen for himself the proof of Jesus’ resurrection, he could do no less than to confess His deity.  Any other response would have been dishonest to the facts of the case.

Many people are like Thomas in that they ask for proof from the word of God.  But when they are confronted with the inescapable truth, their conclusions do not follow the evidence.  “That’s your opinion.”  “I don’t believe that.”  “That’s just your interpretation.”  “My God is bigger than that.”  It takes honesty to want to see things for yourself.  It takes humility to go wherever the truth leads you and confess, “My Lord and my God!”

The ability to physically see and touch Jesus after the resurrection was limited to a 40-day window.  But we can still see Him through the testimony of those who did and come to believe that He is the Christ, the Son of God.  In fact, Jesus said we are “blessed” (John 20:29) when this happens.  Without a doubt.  --- The Auburn Beacon, January 11, 2015