Did the Disciples see the Resurrected Lord in Galilee or Jerusalem?

One of the soul challenging aspects of doing apologetics is the opportunities to resolve alleged Bible contradictions. One that recently came up concerned a supposed problem between Matthew and Luke regarding the location where the resurrected Lord appeared to the disciples.

According to Matthew, the resurrected Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene and another gal named Mary, and He instructs them, “go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they shall see Me” (Matt. 28:10, NASB). The women then told the disciples and the disciples went to Galilee, saw the risen Lord, and received their commission (Matt. 28:16-20).

Now Luke agrees that the women first saw the risen Lord (Luke 24:1-9), and they told Peter, which led him to investigate the empty tomb (Luke 24:10-12); however, he then tells readers that on Resurrection Sunday Jesus appeared to two disciples traveling to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35). The same evening, the risen Lord appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem (Luke 24:13-49). Luke ends his Gospel with Jesus’ ascension and the disciples returning to Jerusalem.

There really is no contradiction between the two Gospels. According to Matthew, Jesus actually intended to meet together with His followers in Galilee after He had risen from the dead. When Jesus informed the disciples of His arrest and crucifixion, coupled with their falling away—as it was written in Zechariah 14:7—He also instructed them that He would rise again and meet them in Galilee (Matt. 26:27; Mark 14:28). So it is no surprise that the resurrected Lord would tell the women to instruct the rest of the brethren to go to Galilee and meet Him there (Matt. 28:10). It is there in Galilee that Jesus commissions the disciples to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:16-20), and there that Jesus provided the disciples one last miraculous catch of fish, which led to Peter’s reconciliation and restoration (John 21:1-17).

Additionally, the Gospels do not present Jesus explicitly saying to His followers that they would only see Him raised from the dead in Galilee and nowhere else. Neither does Matthew indicate the disciples were supposed to see the risen Lord in Galilee on Resurrection Sunday; rather, Jesus’ instructions were to meet Him in Galilee after the resurrection. As such, Luke’s post-resurrection appearances of Jesus on the Emmaus road and Jerusalem most likely transpired prior to the disciples gathering in Galilee, and these post-resurrection accounts do not contradict Matthew’s testimony.

Finally, one must also keep in mind that the literary genre of Gospel narratives permits the New Testament inspired author to use and edit sources in his own unique way for the purpose of exploring different theological and spiritual aspects of Christ life and ministry. As such, Matthew uses Galilee, and what the place represented in his mind, to convey something significant about Israel’s long expected Messiah.

So Matthew may have seen Jerusalem as the place where the religious leaders bribe guards to lie about seeing the risen Lord, and Galilee as the place where Jesus commissions His disciples to make disciples of the world. R. T. France explains,

Between the Galilee pointers of vv. 7, 10 and the Galilee climax of vv. 16-20 comes the final scene of the Gospel in the city, Jerusalem. In contrast with the joy, hope and triumph of the risen Jesus and his disciples in Galilee, we see the fear and sordid deceit of Jesus’ priestly opponents in Jerusalem, the city of darkness…Thus the tables are turned, and those who predicted deceit on the part of Jesus’ disciples (27:63-64) finish up perpetuating deceit themselves in their futile attempt to thwart his triumph.¹

Another possible angle Matthew may be exploring is the command to meet the risen Lord in Galilee represents Messiah’s relation to despised people and His ministry to the Gentiles. D.A. Carson writes,

Why, then, Matthew’s record of the resurrection appearances in Galilee? The answer surly lies in the combination of two themes that have permeated the entire Gospel. First, the Messiah emerges from a despised area…and first sheds his light on a despised people…for the kingdom of heaven belongs to the poor in spirit (5:3). For this reason, too, the risen Jesus first appears to women whose value as witnesses among Jews is worthless…. Second, “Galilee of the Gentiles” (4:5) is compatible with the growing theme of Gentile mission in this Gospel…and prepares for the Great Commission (28:18-20).²

The unique theme explored by the significance Matthew places upon Galilee explains why he may have not included other post-resurrection appearances (e.g. Emmaus) in his Gospel narrative, and readers need to understand that simply because Matthew shapes message on the Messiah in his own way does not preclude the historicity and accuracy of the events recorded in it, neither does it place his resurrection accounts in contradiction to the accounts of Mark, Luke, and John.

Finally, since the resurrected Lord appeared for a period of over forty days (Acts 1:3), one would expect records of the various different testimonies found in the four Gospels. One must also keep in mind that the fact that the four Gospel accounts have different post-resurrection appearance episodes, does not mean they are fictional; rather, they serve as good indicators of testimonials for independent witnesses. If the stories were all the same, one might expect collusion.

---

1. R.T. France, Matthew: Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, vol. 1, ed. Leon Morris (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985),409.
2. D.A. Carson, Matthew: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 590.