Resurrection of Jesus

Are there Bible contradictions regarding His resurrection?

The resurrection of Jesus is a central and extremely important event in Christianity, and the accounts of this event are found in all four Gospels of the New Testament. Although these accounts were written by different authors at different times and from different perspectives, they are remarkably consistent with one another, which further indicates that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

Critics have often pointed out that there are conflicts and contradictions in the Bible regarding His resurrection. But there are no discrepancies between the Gospel narratives. In fact, the different Gospel accounts of the resurrection actually complement each other, providing a fuller and more nuanced picture of the events that took place.

This paper will examine the various accounts of the resurrection of Jesus in the Gospels, demonstrate that they are in agreement with each other, and provide a cohesive and unified narrative of this momentous event.

Timeline

Notes

1. This does not mean they will not see Him in Jerusalem before Galilee. He is saying this to keep a promise made. Mat 26:32
2. Most Bible commentators interpret Luke 24:34 as a proclamation from the gathering, not from the two men who have just arrived. I’m afraid I have to disagree with this assumption for the following reasons.

• This view contradicts Mark 16:13-14 that states those who had not seen Him did NOT believe in the stories of those who have seen Jesus. Jesus rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart Mark 16:14. So how could they make a statement like “Jesus has indeed Risen” if they do not believe it to be true?
• Interrupts the overall flow of these verses of Luke 24:13-35. This is the story of two men who spoke with Jesus for most of their afternoon journey, had a very deep and meaningful conversation with Him, broke bread with Him, and eventually realised who He was and excitedly returned to Jerusalem to share the Good News Luke 24:33 with the others. When they open the door the gathering there says “Jesus has indeed risen, Simon has seen Him” Luke 24:34, and then the next verse focuses back on the two where it has been since verse 13 and they tell the gathering all that occurred and they knew Him when they were breaking bread Luke 24:35.
  No. That all seems very disjointed.
  A more coherent and organised flow would be if;
  It is Cleopas, one of the two, who excitingly proclaims “Jesus has indeed Risen” (and if I may add some colourful conjecture) points to his companion, and continues saying “and has appeared to Simon”.
  Then they tell the gathering the rest of their story and those there still do NOT believe them Mark 16:13.
  Yes, I am saying it is Peter (Simon) who’s the travelling companion of Cleopas. Peter is not mentioned by name until verse 34 and now we know who the other of the two is.
• The word ‘indeed’ here the Greek word is ὄντως. From Strong’s concordance:-“really: – certainly, clean, indeed, of a truth, verily”. This is a reassurance term not a word for agreeance. ie It’s not saying “Yes He is Risen” it’s saying “Truly He has risen”. Not in agreement but said it as reassurance. Why would the crowd give reassurance to the two when the two (regardless of who the second one is) have seen Jesus? They do not need to be reassured. However, the opposite is true. It is the unbelieving gathering that needs reassurance from the two. But then they still do not believe Mark 16:13.
• It seems highly unlikely but not impossible for the two men to know exactly where to find the Eleven (see my comment on Matthew Henry below). A task made much easier if the other is Peter (one of the Eleven) and knows exactly where to find them.
• Instead of having a ‘silent’ meeting between Peter and Jesus as most Bible scholars believe it to be we now have a fairly lengthy account of Luke 24:13-31 of a beautiful encounter and discourse between Jesus and Peter. To me, it makes no sense to have this rich encounter associated with two relatively unknown disciples and for Peter’s meeting with Jesus to go ‘silent’.

In Matthew Henry’s commentary, he says Peter could not be one of the two as they were on the way to see the eleven which Peter was numbered in.
However, if the ‘eleven’ refers to an actual count of the apostles that were found in Luke 24:33 by the two then that is incorrect as the actual number even if Peter was included in the gathering is ten not eleven as Thomas was not there with them John 20:24. Hence, it’s clear the word “Eleven” is another term used to refer to the Apostles (the Twelve minus Judas) and not the actual number gathered.
In my opinion, Peter and Cleopas found the Eleven(Apostles) gathered together and the actual count is nine apostles (ten when Peter is included).
Mr Henry also claims that if Peter was one of the two then he would have been the chief speaker instead of Cleopas. But that is not the case either. Yes, Cleopas gave the opening question in Luke 24:18 but after that, they both spoke “they said unto Him” Luke 24:19

I know those who understand Greek better than I insist that the proclamation comes from those there rather than the two but as I have demonstrated above this does create issues. The most concerning is it contradicts Mark 16:13.

I’m happy to change my understanding if someone can give me an alternative view without having any contradictions. Please share in the comments section below.