The Thomas Question

By:  Erick Nelson
Last Updated:  September 25, 2000


Introduction

These are only some thoughts on a question posed by a friend via email.  Although I have considerable studying and thinking about some of these issues (especially the "Disciples' Witness"), this is intended merely as a high-level overview.  It's just a starting place.  I welcome discussion.

Question

Why was Thomas given an apparent advantage of proof?

Fleshing Out the Question

When Jesus appeared to the disciples after the resurrection, Thomas wasn't there.  When they told him of this encounter, he refused to believe until he saw and touched Jesus for himself.  Soon after, Jesus appeared and Thomas got the proof he wanted.

Actually, Thomas had the same level of proof as the rest of the Eleven (all except Judas).  And so, the question really is:  Why did the Eleven original disciples have proof that has never been available since?  

Answering this question brings in the core issues of Christian Apologetics:

Background


Policy Questions

There are (at least) two kinds of "why God" questions:  (a) Why did God choose to set things up in a certain way?  (b) Is God's arrangement fair?  Does it make any sense?

The first kind of question is often difficult or impossible to answer, and understandably so.  In many cases, he has not told us; and even if he did, we would often not be able to understand the answer.  For instance, I'd like to know:  "Why do you allow Satan to inflict us?"  "If you wanted a holy, definitive book, why didn't Jesus just write it?"  Sure, we can try find plausible answers for these and other similar questions, but it's usually speculation.  I know from my experience as a software programmer that when somebody without the necessary expertise and thinking ability tries to solve a problem through speculation, the answer is almost always wrong.  

On the other hand, I think it's ok to take a stab at the second type of question, "Is it  fair? - does it make sense?", although that one should be humble enough to admit that this might not always be answerable in the final analysis.

I'll try for the fairness issue, especially because it brings up some very important and interesting questions that, in my opinion, can be answered.


Classification of Proof Based on Personal Experience

The experience of the Resurrected Jesus is not the only kind of proof that has been given or claimed in the area of personal experience.  Here is a classification that comes to mind.

Class A.  Experiences of Jesus before his death.  To varying degrees, people came to know Jesus as a real flesh-and-blood human.  They heard his teaching, witnesses his character, and saw his miracles.  Listing from greater/closer experience to less:

Class B.  Experiences of the Resurrected Christ.  

Class C.  Experiences of the Ascended Christ.  Once Jesus ascended, there were never any futher resurrection appearances.  They were instantly shut off.  However, there are at least two dramatic experiences in the NT of the Ascended Christ:

Class D.  Experiences of the Holy Spirit.  The most dramatic occurrence of this in the NT is at Pentecost, but there are several others.  Throughout the book of Acts we find descriptions of an intimate personal relationship with the Spirit - some have said the book should have been called the "Acts of the Holy Spirit."  This presence, beginning at Pentecost, went beyond what had previously been available.  Many Christians today claim to have this experience in some measure. 

Class E.  Experiences of miracles.  During Jesus' ministry, this was commonplace - both at the hands of Jesus and his disiples.  The book of Acts continues this.  Early Fathers, such as Irenaeus, point to the ongoing experience of miracles as evidence for the truth of apostolic Christianity.

Thomas' Faith


Thomas' Faith

Thomas already had Class A Proof.  Before Jesus' death, Thomas was already a committed follower.  Remember that at the time of his demand for proof of the resurrection, Thomas had already left everything to follow Jesus - had lived with him and witnessed all his activities.  He even told the other disciples, when Jesus was heading to Jerusalem, "Let us go and die with him."  He believed in Jesus, in a personal way, so much that he put his life on the line - even before the resurrection.  It's most likely that Thomas shared Peter's conviction "You are the Son of God"; it's just that coming back from death was too good to be true.

Not only that, Thomas had originally joined with Jesus on the basis of a very limited set of proof:  some teaching, some feel for Jesus' character and authority, some miracles - probably without even an understanding of Jesus as the Messiah.  

So there's a very real sense in which Thomas became a believer well before resurrection was an issue, and the resurrection appearances only served to confirm and solidify his belief. 

The person standing outside Christianity cannot  - on the basis of analogy with Thomas alone - expect the same level of proof, without the precondition of a similar personal  commitment to Jesus.  The resurrection appearances (Class B) did not bring anyone (except possibly James, Jesus' brother) to Christ.  They were given - even in Thomas' case - as evidence which confirmed belief.

Thomas was not condemned for his doubt, except for the implication that he ought to have known better.  (Remember, even at the Last Supper, Philip had just said "show us the Father" and Jesus had replied with surprise that Philip still didn't know (believe) who he was.  It was hard to get your mind around).


Proof and Calling

Are some people afforded greater degrees of proof than others?  When it comes to personal revelations, this is pretty obviously the case.  Why would this be?  Here are two plausible reasons:  

1.  Some people are more receptive to such proof than others.  Some are actively seeking God, others are passively open to God, still others are indifferent, and some are consciously or unconscously avoiding God.

2.  Some people have a special calling.  The apostles had a special calling.  This is not to say that they were more imortant than the rest of us (they weren't), or that more was required of them (100% is required of everybody).  But perhaps the job they were given

The more, in these two senses, that was required, the more ammunition was needed to get them through their assignments.  "To whom much is given, much is required."  Perhaps the converse is true, "Since I will require much of you, I will give you the foundation you need."

Thoughts on Proof and Christianity


Faith and Make-Believe

I don't have time to get into specifics about this, but I'll just say that the passage in Hebrews 11 is one of the most misunderstand passages in the Bible. 

It says "But faith is an assurance of what is hoped for, a conviction of unseen realities."  (New Berkeley version)  This is intended as a description of some of the attributes of faith (trust), but not as a formal definition of "Faith", and it is certainly not a declaration that genuine faith is unfounded.

This passage has given rise to the notion that faith is simply "Make-Believe".  And make-believe can be interpreted as trying to believe something is true when you have no reason to believe so.  This is pretty close saying something is true when you know it's not, which is lying.

And this leads to the "anti-apologetic" position that encourages people to believe in Jesus without evidence, which is pretty much like believing in Jesus for no reason at all - or at least, believing in Jesus because of someone's say-so.  Having Faith in God on someone's say-so isn't having faith in God, it's having faith in that person.

This brings us to the huge question, "What kinds of evidence, and degree of proof, should be sufficient for a commitment to Jesus?"


Jesus and Signs (Proof)

At least twice, Jesus chastises people for seeking after a sign, but in the same breath at one occasion offers his coming resurrection as his sign.  

On the other hand, on many occasions he actually points to his miracles as signs proving he was who he said he was.  

And, the most compelling argument may be the fact that he trained his immediate disciples to be Witnesses to his life, his teaching, his miracles, and finally his resurrection.  The word "witness" appears over and over in the NT as a constant theme.  It is what they saw and touched and heard that they pointed to - not to some kind of arbitrary and unfounded personal, subjective "faith."


Proof Compelling Belief

Is dramatic proof strong enough to compel belief?  Lots of people have said, "Sure, I'd believe if I had THIS kind of proof!"  Here's a short list of people who had a pretty high level of proof but turned away.

Judas had Class A proof.  Up until the Resurrection, Judas had exactly the same kind and degree of proof that the other disciples did.  He had left his former life to follow Jesus as did Thomas.  He saw Jesus' miracles, words, and actions first-hand.  But he not only turned away from Jesus, he betrayed him.  Inexplicable to me, but it happened.

The Pharisees and other opponents also had Class A proof, but not quite as up close and personal as the disciples.  Still, they were eye-witnesses of several of the miracles and Jesus' teaching.  They debated with him.  They had reliable reports from their scouts of Lazarus' resurrection, and their reaction was not to think "Hey, maybe this guy's for real", but rather to intensify their plots against him.

During the 1970's Jesus Movement, many people had pretty dramatic personal experiences - release from drugs, visions, healings, prophecies, etc.  At least that's what they thought at the time (and I believe that many of them did, but that's not necessary for this point).  But later, many people left Jesus and disavowed their Christianity.  

Proof Sufficient for Belief

There are two related questions.  The first is "What kind and degree of proof is it  reasonable to expect before one is justified in committing himself to Jesus?"

The second is "What kind and degree of proof actually exists?"


Degrees of Proof

In legal evidence, there are at least three degress of proof:

1.  Preponderance of evidence.  When all is said and done, if the probability of "truth" is greater than that of falsehood, it's declared to be true.  50% is the threshold.  This is typically used in civil cases, and is also a measuring stick to determine fact in historiography.

2.  Beyond Reasonable Doubt.  The strongest degree, approaching 100% (although no percentage is given for this, I think of it as maybe 95% probability).  This is used in criminal cases to determine guilt and innocence.

3.  Clear and Convincing Evidence.  Somewhere between Preponderance and Beyond Reasonable Doubt.  Let's say this is 80%.

Exact percentages are, of course, very difficult to produce, but they can give a general feel for certainty and confidence.  The ones I use, then, are:


What is Reasonable to Expect?

I don't know if this has actually been stated anywhere in Christian Apologetic material, but I imagine somebody has tried to nail this down.

I could very well be wrong, but I don't think that a 51% probability is enough to commit my life to.  And I don't know if waiting for 95% certainty is waiting too long.  Depends on how long it takes to get to 95% confidence.

So, it seems to me that 80%, Clear and Convincing Evidence is all anybody could reasonably ask, on balance.


What Is Available?

The idea of dispassionately standing outside Christianity, sifting through all the evidence, and reaching a logical conclusion, is an abstract one.  Few if any people have ever done this, because we're human beings, engaged in the struggle of life.  

Jesus said that if we are to know of the truth about him, he should try follow Jesus' teaching first.  It's a process.  And maybe, as we are faithful, we go a step at a time with him.

That said, in the next section I give a ridiculously brief summary of the evidence I can think of which supports a belief in Jesus.  Each category deservers (and usually gets) a whole book.

What Evidence Exists?

I divide it into these categories:  "Personal Experience" and "Reasons to Believe." The Reasons to Believe category consists of:

These four categories could possibly be considered "intellectual" foundations for Christianity.  My position on such arguments is, if you're smart enough to ask the questions (i.e. to actively doubt), then you're smart enough to deal with the answers.  


Personal Experience

For many centuries, Christians have claimed to experience a real, non-imaginary, conversational relationship with God "through" Jesus.  Manifestations of the Spirit, visions, prophecies.  Perhaps these are self-induced deceptive states of consciousness, perhaps they are the real thing.  Perhaps in some people at some times they are genuine, while others are faking and still others are deluded.

I have personal friends and acquaintances who claim to have various combinations of dramatic and mundane encounters of the supernatural in their lives.  There are a very few who were early role models for me (e.g. Father Harriot), who appeared beyond any reasonable doubt to know Jesus.  They both talked and listened.

The only way to guage personal experience, when all is said and done, is to judge your own.  This is problematic.  One Jesus Music band sang, "If you will believe then you will receive and feel the gift from above ..."  In one important sense, I think this is absolutely wrong.  Faith should not be arbitrary, or that casual. 

However, in any sense there is a truth here.  It's tough to demand a particular personal experience as proof (if you can be successful doing that, then more power to you).  And while dramatic conversion experiences do happen, it's more typical for your personal experience to grow as you grow.

What is Jesus looking for?  There's no way I can describe this adequately, but here's my try:  

I recently saw a TV bio about Sharon Stone.  What stood out to me was the incredible level of commitment and determination she has displayed in building an acting career.  Changing her looks, learning martial arts moves for Total Recall, taking bit parts, committing to her character, playing the visibility game, delivering when she got her breaks.  Her whole life was geared around the single-minded pursuit of this goal. 

I'm convinced that Jesus wants people who will aggressively pursue him, and his goal -  love of God and neighbor - with wisdom, endurance, and whole-heartedly.  He doesn't especially want you to passively and reluctantly give up your own dreams and desires, but to joyfully throw them away to pursue the REAL goal.

Are you willing to do this?  Then I believe your personal experience will both lead and follow.


The Disciples' Witness

This is something I care about and am most familiar with.  It is personally convincing to me.  At a detailed level, it can be pretty involved (especially point #1).  I tried to deal with just the first aspect of #1 in my Metaphorical Gospel article.

The essential argument is as follows.  

  1. Following the standards of legal evidence and historiography, we must conclude that Jesus' own disiples preached a specific message about him:  that he was the Son of God, and rose from the dead.
  2. Given this, there are three logical alternatives:
    • Plot Theory - the disciples made it up
    • Misunderstood - the disciples thought it was true but it wasn't
    • True - it's true
  3. Weighing the pros and cons of the three alternatives, the third one is the most likely.

Degree of Proof:  At least Clear and Convincing Evidence


Philosophical / World View

Christianity has good answers to the main philsophical problems, in large part because it is a form of Theism.

Problem of Moral Value.  Is there a real right and wrong to the universe?  Christian theism gives a rational underpinning to the belief that there is a real right and wrong, and freedom to choose between them which competing views lack.  The problem of evil is a problem for Christianity, precisely because Christianity takes evil seriously.  It says it really exists.  Materialism and pantheism do not say evil really exists, at least in this full sense.  

The free will defense is Christianity's answer to the problem of evil.  Alvin Plantinga presented a famous version of this.  C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain is an excellent discussion of the problem of evil. 

Problem of Knowledge.  Called Epistemology.  Christianity presents a rational foundation for the belief that we can know anything about the world.  Francis Schaeffer gave a nice presentation of this.  "Soft" presuppositionalists (in Christian Apologetics) place a lot of emphasis on this.

Problem of Mind.  How is it that consciousness is possible?  Can it ever be an attribute of matter?  Christianity's answer is that we have a soul, which is the seat or locus of consciousness.

Existential Problem.  Existentialists have given their view of the "human condition."  We experience - on the one hand - lostness, alienation, and eventually death.  On the other hand, we long for permanence, wholeness, love, beauty, and "home."  Christianity explains this with the Fall, and our Rescue in Jesus.

Summary.  In fact, Theism's facility with answers to such questions has led some people to charge that it was actually invented precisely to make up answers to these problems.

Degree of Proof:  Clear and Convincing Evidence


Christian Witness

This is a difficult topic, and I want to just touch on it.  A lot has been made of the examples of Christian "Bad Witness."  The response to this, in a nutshell is:  You can judge Jesus better by those who followed him than by those who did not follow him.  

The martyrs, saints, mystics, and thinkers witness very effectively to the power of the gospel.

Degree of Proof:  At least Preponderance


Science

There are several scientific arguments.  Ignoring the dispute about Creation and Evolution, I think the best scientific evidence of theism in general is the acceptance of the Big Bang theory, along with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic, Entropy.  Christianity presents an answer to "what causes the Big Bang" which isn't available as clearly and simply anywhere else.

Degree of Proof:  At least Preponderance

Converging Evidence

G.K. Chesterton said that when asked why he believed in Christianity, it was hard to forumulate an answer, because in his mind you could start almost anywhere.  To him, all roads led to Rome.  

Converging Evidence means independent evidential cases, each pointing to the same truth.  The mathematical probability of several such claims being wrong is compounded.  

For instance, if I have three cases leading independently to the same conclusion, each of whose probability is 1/2, then the odds of all of them being wrong are:  1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/8.  Thus, the probability of the conclusion being true are 7/8.

Another way to put this without the math is that if I have, say, three independent arguments leading to the same conclusion, two of them can fall (be found invalid), but if one still stands, the conclusion will be judged to be true.

Let's try this on the evidence mentioned above, leaving out Personal Experience (which is hard to quantify anyway):

That is 1/5 x 1/5 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1%

Therefore, the probability (given these values) that Christianity is true is 99%, well beyond the figure for Reasonable Doubt.  

And this doesn't even include the important category of Personal Experience.

Conclusion

Back to the original question:  "Why was Thomas given an apparent advantage of proof?" and its correlary "Is that fair"?

Answers:

1.  Policy - You could just as well ask, "Why wasn't I born in Thomas' place?"  Policy questions are by-and-large not answerable - not because there are no answers but because they require a certain level of intellect and experience for proper understanding.

2.  Thomas already had committed himself to Jesus originally on the basis of a very small set of Class A evidence, and solidified his allegiance to Jesus to the point of death well before the resurrection was an issue.

3.  Thomas was called to a unique task and perhaps needed greater assurance.

4.  The degree of evidence available is well beyond what is needed for faith.  I speculated that 80% certainty was needed, and found 99% certainty to be available -  "Reasons for Belief."