Why the Resurrection is Only Explicitly Referenced in One Gospel—A Deep Dive into Trusting Its Truth
Wrestling with an Uncomfortable Question
Imagine for a moment that you’re building a case for the single most important event in human history. Everything hangs on it—your faith, your worldview, your hope for eternity. Wouldn’t you expect the evidence to be overwhelming, airtight, and consistent across every source?
But here’s the unsettling reality: the resurrection of Jesus—the event that defines Christianity—is referenced in one gospel (Mark) in its earliest and most abrupt form, and described in varied ways across the others. Why?
This isn’t just an intellectual curiosity; it’s a question that challenges us to wrestle with the heart of our faith. Can we trust the resurrection when its accounts differ? Why would God choose to communicate such a vital event in this way?
Today, we’re diving into these questions with no shortcuts. We’ll explore the textual history of the gospels, the cultural and theological context of their writing, and the deeper reasons behind God’s intentionality. The goal? To emerge with a faith that is not only more informed but also more secure.
Part 1: Clarifying the Problem—What Do We Mean by ‘One Gospel’?
Let’s start with the claim: “The resurrection is only referenced in one gospel.”
Technically, this is a misunderstanding. All four gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—speak to the reality of the resurrection, but they do so in different ways. Here’s a quick overview:
Matthew (Chapter 28): The women encounter the angel at the tomb, Jesus appears to them, and He gives the Great Commission to the disciples.
Mark (Chapter 16): The earliest manuscripts end abruptly at verse 8, with the women fleeing the empty tomb in fear. Later manuscripts add appearances of the risen Jesus.
Luke (Chapter 24): The resurrection is detailed with appearances to the disciples on the road to Emmaus and in Jerusalem.
John (Chapters 20–21): Personal encounters with Mary Magdalene, Thomas, and others provide a deeply intimate view of the resurrection.
So what’s the real issue? It’s that the earliest gospel, Mark, doesn’t narrate the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in its original form. This has led skeptics to question whether the resurrection was a later addition to Christian belief.
Part 2: Why Does Mark End Abruptly?
1. The Textual History of Mark’s Gospel
The Gospel of Mark ends at Mark 16:8 in its earliest and most reliable manuscripts:
“Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.”
Later manuscripts include additional verses (Mark 16:9–20) that describe Jesus’ appearances to Mary Magdalene, the disciples, and His ascension. Scholars agree these were likely added by early Christians who wanted to harmonize Mark with the other gospels.
Why would the original gospel end this way?
2. Mark’s Theological Intent
Mark’s gospel is unique. Written around 60–70 AD, it’s the shortest and most action-packed of the four. Mark isn’t concerned with providing exhaustive details; instead, he focuses on the tension between Jesus’ identity and the human response to it.
Mark’s abrupt ending serves a powerful purpose: it places the reader in the shoes of the women at the tomb. They’ve witnessed the empty tomb, but they haven’t yet seen the risen Christ. The question lingers: What will you do with this knowledge? Will fear silence you, or will faith compel you to proclaim the good news?
By leaving the resurrection implied rather than narrated, Mark emphasizes the necessity of faith. The resurrection isn’t presented as a spectacle but as an invitation.
Part 3: Why the Resurrection Accounts Differ
Another stumbling block for many is the apparent discrepancies in the resurrection narratives. For example:
Who went to the tomb? Matthew mentions two women; Mark names three; Luke refers to a group; John focuses on Mary Magdalene.
What did they see? Was there one angel or two?
When did Jesus appear to the disciples?
At first glance, these differences might seem like contradictions. But let’s take a deeper look.
1. The Nature of Eyewitness Testimony
Variations in eyewitness testimony are normal and expected. If every account of an event is identical, it often indicates collusion rather than authenticity.
For example, imagine four people witnessing a car accident. One focuses on the color of the cars, another remembers the driver’s expression, a third notices the bystanders, and the fourth recounts the sequence of events. The core truth remains the same—there was an accident—but each account highlights different details.
The gospel writers, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote from unique perspectives:
Matthew emphasizes fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.
Mark writes for a Roman audience, focusing on action and immediacy.
Luke, a historian, prioritizes careful investigation and scriptural continuity.
John offers a deeply personal and theological reflection.
2. The Core Message Is Consistent
Despite their differences, the gospels agree on three critical points:
Jesus died and was buried.
The tomb was found empty.
Jesus appeared to His followers alive.
These shared elements form the foundation of the resurrection claim. The variations in detail don’t undermine the core truth; they enhance its richness and credibility.
Part 4: Can We Trust the Resurrection?
1. The Empty Tomb
Hostile Testimony: Even Jesus’ opponents admitted the tomb was empty. Matthew 28:11–15 records how the chief priests bribed the guards to spread the story that Jesus’ disciples stole His body. If the tomb wasn’t empty, there would have been no need to fabricate such a claim.
Women as Witnesses: All four gospels agree that women were the first to discover the empty tomb. In the cultural context of the first century, women’s testimony was considered unreliable. If the resurrection story were fabricated, inventing women as the primary witnesses would have been counterproductive. This detail underscores the authenticity of the accounts.
2. Post-Resurrection Appearances
The New Testament records multiple appearances of the risen Jesus to different individuals and groups, including skeptics like Thomas and persecutors like Paul. These appearances transformed lives:
Peter, who had denied Jesus, became the bold leader of the early church.
James, Jesus’ skeptical brother, became a prominent Christian leader after encountering the risen Christ (1 Corinthians 15:7).
Paul, a Pharisee who persecuted Christians, was radically changed after seeing the resurrected Jesus (Acts 9).
The cumulative weight of these testimonies—especially the transformation of Jesus’ followers—points to the reality of the resurrection.
3. Early Christian Proclamation
From the beginning, the resurrection was central to Christian preaching. Paul’s letters, written within 20–30 years of Jesus’ death, include early creeds that affirm the resurrection:
“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 Cephas, and then to the Twelve” (1 Corinthians 15:3–5).
The fact that these creeds were widely circulated so soon after the resurrection underscores their credibility.
4. The Birth of the Church
The explosive growth of the early church in the face of persecution is inexplicable without the resurrection. The disciples didn’t just preach a moral philosophy—they proclaimed a risen Christ, even at the cost of their lives. As N.T. Wright argues, the rise of Christianity is “unintelligible” unless the resurrection actually happened.
Part 5: Why Did God Allow Variations in the Resurrection Accounts?
This brings us to a deeper theological question: If the resurrection is so central, why didn’t God ensure it was recorded identically in all the gospels?
1. God Values Diversity of Witness
The gospel accounts reflect the diverse ways people encounter Jesus. Just as God uses different personalities, cultures, and contexts to reveal Himself, He allowed the resurrection to be portrayed through the unique lenses of each gospel writer. This diversity enriches our understanding of the event.
2. Faith Requires Engagement
God doesn’t overwhelm us with irrefutable evidence because faith is a relational act. The resurrection accounts provide enough evidence to believe but still require us to seek, wrestle, and respond. As Hebrews 11:6 reminds us:
“And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”
By presenting the resurrection in varied and layered ways, God invites us into a deeper engagement with His truth.
3. The Resurrection Is More Than an Event
The resurrection isn’t just a historical fact—it’s a reality that continues to transform lives. Each gospel writer emphasizes a different aspect of this truth:
Matthew highlights the fulfillment of prophecy and Jesus’ authority as King.
Mark focuses on the urgency of the gospel message.
Luke emphasizes Jesus as the Savior who opens the Scriptures to us.
John reveals the intimate and personal nature of Jesus’ resurrection appearances.
Together, these accounts form a mosaic that reveals the multidimensional beauty of the resurrection.
Part 6: The Resurrection and the Reliability of Scripture
A common objection to the resurrection is the perceived inconsistency of the gospel accounts. But when we examine these accounts more closely, they actually strengthen our confidence in Scripture.
1. The Gospels Reflect Independent Witnesses
The differences in the resurrection narratives show that the gospel writers didn’t conspire to create a single, harmonized account. Instead, they faithfully recorded the traditions and testimonies available to them.
2. Scripture’s Honesty About Human Weakness
The gospels don’t shy away from portraying the doubts and failures of Jesus’ followers. For example:
The women flee from the tomb in fear (Mark 16:8).
The disciples don’t believe the women’s report (Luke 24:11).
Thomas refuses to believe until he sees Jesus for himself (John 20:24–29).
These raw and honest details lend credibility to the accounts. If the resurrection were fabricated, the writers would have likely presented a more polished and triumphant narrative.
Part 7: How Should We Respond to the Resurrection?
Ultimately, the resurrection isn’t just a historical event to be analyzed—it’s a truth that demands a response.
1. Embrace the Hope of the Resurrection
The resurrection is the foundation of our hope. As Paul writes:
“If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:17).
Because Jesus rose from the dead, we have the assurance of forgiveness, eternal life, and victory over sin and death.
2. Live as Witnesses of the Resurrection
The first witnesses of the resurrection didn’t keep it to themselves—they proclaimed it boldly, even in the face of persecution. As followers of Christ, we are called to do the same.
3. Trust God’s Wisdom in His Revelation
The way the resurrection is recorded in Scripture reflects God’s wisdom and purpose. It challenges us to engage with His Word, seek Him in faith, and share the hope of the gospel with others.
The Open Invitation
The resurrection is more than a historical fact or theological doctrine—it’s an invitation. Through the varied accounts in the gospels, God invites us to encounter the risen Christ for ourselves.
So here’s the question: What will you do with the empty tomb? Will you respond in fear or faith?
If today’s discussion stirred your heart or raised new questions, take time to reflect on the resurrection accounts in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Ask God to deepen your understanding and strengthen your faith.
And if this message encouraged you, share it with someone who needs to hear the good news. Together, let’s proclaim the hope of the resurrection to a world in need.
Thank you for joining us today. Until next time, remember: the resurrection isn’t just something to believe—it’s a truth to live.
