New Testament Studies

http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS

Additional services for New Testament Studies:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

‘But Some Doubted’

I. P. Ellis

New Testament Studies / Volume 14 / Issue 04 / July 1968, pp 574 - 580

DOI: 10.1017/S0028688500018853, Published online: 05 February 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0028688500018853

How to cite this article:

I. P. Ellis (1968). ‘But Some Doubted’. New Testament Studies, 14, pp 574-580
doi:10.1017/S0028688500018853

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS, IP address: 193.61.135.80 on 17 Apr 2015

 R
574 - KEMPTHORNE
whereas a general sense would require rather the present.1 Paul thus ends this
chapter on the same note as the preceding; indeed this whole passage vi. 12-
20 has served to justify the terrible sentence passed in v. 2—5.
A version of the passage follows by way of summary:
'Everything is in my power', you say; but not everything is beneficial.
Everything is in my power, but / will not be ' overpowered' by somebody.
' Food is for the stomach and the stomach for food', you say; but God will do
away with both. The body is not for immorality but for the Lord, and the
Lord for the body. (God not only raised the Lord from death; by his power he
will raise us up too.) Don't you know that your bodies are 'members of
Christ'? Would I then remove the members of Christ and make them
members of an immoral woman? Never! Or don't you know that the man
who is living with that immoral woman is 'one body' with her? (For it says
'the two shall become one flesh'.) But the man who 'lives with' the Lord is
'one spirit' with him. Continue to 'shun immorality'. You say 'Any sin that
a man commits is outside the Body'. No—the man who is being immoral is
committing a sin against his Body. Or don't you know that your Body is the
temple of the Holy Spirit, whom you have among you from God? You are
not your own; you were bought at a price. So glorify God in your Body.
R. KEMPTHORNE

New Test. Stud. 14, pp. 574-80

'BUT SOME DOUBTED'

'Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus
had directed them. And when they saw him they worshipped him; but
some doubted'(Matt, xxviii. 16-17, R.S.V.).
The most striking feature of St Matthew's account of the post-Resurrection
appearance of Christ is its brevity. Jesus appears in Galilee on the mountain
of revelation and commissions the disciples to preach the gospel to the world.
The appearance is not described, and the other details are brief and to the
point.
Why does Matthew mention 'doubt' in this short narrative? It is not
explained. No evidential appeal or moral lesson is served by it. Jesus does

allusions (cf. also p. 570, n. i) are the more significant if the recent suggestion of Miss J. Massingberd
Ford is correct, that the Episde was addressed mainly to Jewish Christians. She sees a Jewish setting
in I Cor. v. 1-5, comparing the excommunications practised among the Essenes and at Qumran
(Ford, 'The First Epistle to the Corinthians or the First Epistle to the Hebrews', Catholic Biblical
Quarterly, xxvm, 1966, esp. pp. 414 f.).
1
Allo notes the aorist and takes it inceptively: 'ils se mettent done une fois a glorifier Dieu...'
(op. cit. p. 150). And Morris: 'Let there be no delay in obeying' [op. cit. p. 105).

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Apr 2015 IP address: 193.61.135.80

 'BUT SOME D O U B T E D ' 575

not annul the doubt by giving palpable proof of his identity, as in Luke xxiv.
24-43, J o n n xx- 27> n o r does he upbraid the disciples for their hardness of
heart, cf. Luke xxiv. 25, Mark xvi. 14. He proceeds straight to the com-
missioning without any introduction: the evangelist says simply that he
'came to them'.
Did the doubt remain? If it was dispelled, why mention it? It stands
incongruously between the disciples' worship of the risen Christ and the
great Trinitarian formula which he delivers to them. As John Fenton says
in the Pelican Gospel Commentary, 'it is not at all clear why Matthew says
this'. 1
The simplest explanation is that the evangelist is quoting facts. Doubt
and unbelief are mentioned in the post-Resurrection narratives in both Luke
and John (Luke xxiv. 22, 36 f.; John xx. 8 f., 11 f., 24 f.). The hardness of
heart and non-awareness, if not actual unbelief, of the disciples is a familiar
theme in Mark. That Matthew should record such an uncomplimentary
feature about the disciples shows the authenticity of his material, or, at least,
it suggests that a firm tradition existed that the appearances of Jesus were
not of the sort to compel belief in his Resurrection, even by the eleven.
But elsewhere doubt and unbelief do not occur in quite the same tran-
scendental circumstances. This scene is more like the Ascension, and hence
some commentators have held that doubt, though a fact, cannot be predicated
of the disciples. Matthew has more theological propriety than to suggest it.
In other places in the gospel he has toned down references derogatory to
them. In that case ol 6£ eSioraaav must be rendered 'but others doubted'
(so W. C. Allen in the International Critical Commentary, A. H . McNeile,
and many others). Thus, Jesus appears on the mountain to a larger company
than the eleven (perhaps the 'five hundred brethren' mentioned in I Cor.
xv. 6 ?). In Luke xxiv. 9 the women return from the tomb to tell what they
have seen to 'the eleven and all the rest', and, though all disbelieve, the
disciples are subsequently convinced by an appearance of the Lord. However,
'the rest' go with the disciples to Galilee, and the reference in Matt, xxviii. 17
must be to their doubt, not to that of the eleven.
But both these theories are unsatisfactory. The most obvious sense of the
passage is that it was some of the disciples who doubted; and Matthew's
transcendental setting suggests more than a recital of mere facts. The
evangelist must have a purpose in mentioning doubt, particularly when he
has omitted a good deal else that would seem to be necessary in describing
a post-Resurrection appearance.
The question is, What does Matthew mean by 'doubt'? If this can be
decided, an alternative solution is possible. In fact, it can be answered pre-
cisely. For 'doubt', Matthew uses a term unique in the New Testament and
not found at all in the Septuagint—the verb SIOTCCJGO. The only other usage
1
Pelican Gospel Commentary on St Matthew, p. 453.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Apr 2015 IP address: 193.61.135.80

576 I. P. ELLIS
is in the comparable passage, Matt. xiv. 31 (Jesus to Peter, ' O man of little
faith, why did you doubt?').
Though the biblical vocabulary is not rich in words about doubt or disbelief,
the more obvious ones do occur. In the Septuagint, the verb SiotKpivco is found
some 30 times, particularly in Ezekiel, where it means 'to pass judgement'
(Ezek. xvii. 20; xx. 35-6; xxxiv. 17 and 20, etc.), and Job, where the sense is
to try or choose critically (Job ix. 14 and 33; xii. 11; xv. 5; xxi. 22; xxiii. 10).
This sense lies behind the two uses of the term in the gospels, Mark xi. 23, as
duplicated in Matt. xxi. 21, where it denotes a critical attitude implying
the absence of faith.
The action of actually disbelieving or refusing to believe is denoted by
canar&o, a late word in the Septuagint (Wisd. i. 2; x. 7; xii. 17, etc.), and
found in the gospels in the post-Resurrection narratives, where it refers to the
disciples (Luke xxiv. 11; Mark xvi. 16).
These two words correspond to the modern English usage which equates
doubt with disbelief, implying a decision against belief. A cursory reading of
Matt, xxviii. 17 could suggest something of this sort. The human subject
stands over against God, who is 'objectivized', and rejected.
But Matthew does not use these terms. Nor does he mean by 'doubt'
perplexity, which would be rendered by the verb dtTropEco: i.e. the disciples
were at a loss without actually disbelieving (Mark vi. 20; Luke xxiv. 4;
John xiii. 22, and various uses in the Septuagint).
The same distinctions appear in the Vulgate. To disbelieve is non credo, less
frequently haesito: but, in the two passages where Siaxdjco occurs, dubito is
found (elsewhere in the New Testament, only in Acts x. 20).
Thus, 51CTT&3W has a precise meaning. What this is can be gathered from
the classical and koine Greek uses of the term. In Plato1 SICTTAJCO denotes the
state of uncertainty and inability to make a decision from the evidence pre-
sented to one. In Aristotle2 it means hesitation to make decisions for the same
reason. Moulton and Milligan3 give two instances from the papyri where the
meaning is not to know one way or the other when cases or points are presented.
Uses in the Fathers follow the same pattern.4 Dubito, though wider in
meaning, has the same notion of inability to make an assertion in the face of
particular facts, to oscillate from one side to the other.
In short, Siora^co means that the person concerned is divided in his
conviction. The disbelieving man has made a stand against belief; the doubt-
ful man cannot make up his mind whether to believe or not. The existence
of faith is implied, but it is imperfect. The situation is different from that of
the perplexed man, who, so often, has not got all the facts. The situation of
doubt is more specific: the facts are present but action on them is lacking.
1
Plato, Theaetetus 190a, Ion 534c, Laws 897b, Sophist 235a (Oxford edition).
2
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics n i 2 b 2 (Oxford edition).
8
Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, p. 165.
4
G. W. H. Lampe (ed.), A Lexicon of Patristic Greek, fasc. 2, p. 375.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Apr 2015 IP address: 193.61.135.80

 'BUT SOME D O U B T E D ' 577

The translators of the Jerusalem Bible, paying attention to 'dubito', render

the passage, 'but some hesitated', and this gives the flavour of the scene.
Two conclusions follow from this linguistic evidence. First, 'doubt' does
not have the sinister overtones of disbelief or actual unbelief. The resurrected
Christ is not' objectivized' and then rejected by some of his followers. Matthew
speaks instead of irresolution and wavering. They could not decide whole-
heartedly. Doubt here has a theological purpose; a lesson can be drawn from it.
Secondly, it is unnecessary to avoid what the obvious sense of the language
implies, that this doubt was felt by the actual disciples. Oi S£ means the
eleven and not some others. If this is so, then TrpoaeKuvr|aav can be taken
together with eSfaracrav: they worshipped, and they doubted. Commentators
from Jerome to Lagrange have proposed that the aorist of Sicrrajco should
be understood as a pluperfect, so that the disbelief precedes the worship
('they worshipped him, but some of them had (previously) doubted'). But
doubt properly carries the same time sense as worship; the eleven worshipped,
but some of them wavered. As TrpoaEKOvncrcn; expresses a gesture, so ^Siaroccrav
must also express a gesture, a lingering, a state of ambiguity about the fact
presented to them.1
These conclusions mean that the uncertain disciple fits into place in
Matthew's post-Resurrection narrative. His doubt is not an incidental
detail; and it illuminates what should have been obvious anyhow, that this
is a carefully composed narrative with a purpose of its own. Matthew does not
duplicate the other evangelists. He refers to one appearance, and he describes
this by using themes from earlier in the gospel, so that the whole is brought to a
satisfying conclusion. Hence the distinctive colouring of the narrative and what
Gerhard Barth calls its 'Matthaean thoughts and linguistic peculiarities'.2
It is Matthaean interest which makes the Resurrection appearance in
Galilee so obviously an ' ecclesiastical' event, i.e. Jesus—Lord of the Church
and new Lawgiver—on the mount of revelation commissions his Church to
preach, to baptize, and to teach. Matthaean interest in the disciples as the
rulers and teachers of the Church also puts them squarely into the narrative.
But the emphasis is not on their subjective experience, which is wholly out
of the picture, but on what Christ does with them. They are to make other
disciples, men from all nations. This brings in a further Matthaean theme :
the point of Christian life is discipleship, that is its quality. The role of the
eleven disciples is that of representative figures who show this quality in
actual life. But there is also difficulty and challenge in the life of discipleship.
Matthew, if anything, intensifies the Marcan stress on the difficulties of
being a disciple.
The reference to the 'doubt'of the eleven must be put in some perspective
such as this. Though it may well have a historical incident as its basis, it
1
Cf. E. Lohmeyer (ed. W. Schmauch), Das Evangelium des Matthaus (Gottingen, 196a), p. 415.
a
G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, H . J . Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, p. 131, n. 1.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Apr 2015 IP address: 193.61.135.80

578 i. P . ELLIS
is not included in this tightly packed didactic narrative simply as a snippet
of information.
The clue to the matter is in the close connexion of doubt with worship.
When one turns to the parallel use of SIOTO^GO in the passage Matt. xiv.
22-33 (the walking on the water and the doubt of Peter), the two are again
found together, and this seems to be significant. The elements in this earlier
episode in Galilee are very similar. This is another scene played out between
Jesus and his disciples: here also it is said 'he came to them'. The focus
in each case is the disciples' relation to Christ, how they are constituted
by him, and their response or reaction to this situation. Its larger reference
is as suggested above, the life of discipleship itself, that of the man of faith in
the Church for whom Matthew writes his gospel.
Doubt and worship appear in these two episodes as follows:
Doubt. In the earlier scene Jesus rebukes Peter, who, after his initial con-
fidence, becomes uncertain and so begins to sink (Matt. xiv. 31). In the
post-Resurrection event not one but 'some' of the disciples doubt. Here lies
the importance of understanding the precise nature of doubt. In Matthew's
eyes doubt which is uncertainty can be predicated of a disciple; it is an oc-
cupational hazard, for there is a correlation between faith and doubt. (One
may cite examples of doubt found next to believing trust in the Old Testa-
ment, cf. Sarah in Gen. xviii. 12, Gideon in Judges vi. 11-24, and Manoah in
Judges xiii. 8.) Thus Jesus' words to Peter: the weaker the faith, the greater
the uncertainty.
It is not unbelief which is the issue: in Peter's case it is confidence which
gives way to sudden panic. For Matthew this is a paradigm of the life of
discipleship. Discipleship is never a static state, a condition to rest in, but
a vocation to be realized, with contending forces bidding for one's loyalty,
and always the danger, shown in the Pharisees, that one will rest on one's
merits and not trust in grace. The faith which characterizes discipleship means
making a stand, going on a venture, deciding about the facts presented to one.
Matthew illustrates this in the lives of the twelve themselves. He does not
remove critical references to them, as older commentators held, but multi-
plies those which show their defective faith, their hesitation and uncertainty.1
He extends this to the Resurrection event itself. There, in the face of the
Resurrected Lord, and required to make decision for him, the disciples waver
and betray the same fatal hesitation.
Worship. In Matthew xiv the disciples worship Jesus after the rescue of
Peter and the stilling of the sea. In Matt, xxviii, on seeing him (I86VTES
as in Matt. xiv. 26; but the brevity here is remarkable) on the appointed
mountain, they fall to their knees. As with SICTTAJCO, the use of irpocrKuv^co is
unique: there are no other instances of the disciples worshipping Jesus.
1
Bornkamm, etc., op. cit. p. 118, and see p. 119, 'Matthew knows that in the congregation
love grows cold'.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Apr 2015 IP address: 193.61.135.80

 'BUT SOME D O U B T E D ' 579
Again, the elements are very similar. These are both epiphany scenes,
denoting the power and authority ofJesus, quite possibly also his transcenden-
tal appearance. The disciple confronted with this adores. Thus, for Matthew
worship is the product of faith, prostration is the physical consequence of that
certainty and decision called forth when presented with Christ. Indeed,
worship may be seen as the opposite of doubt, for doubt means wavering,
but worship is action consequent on a certainty. There is no ambiguity about
worship.
The older commentators who saw doubt as disbelief failed to see the force
of Matthew's contrast here (so W. C. Allen, ' The opposite of doubt is not
worship but belief'1). It may be precisely to heighten the contrast that
Matthew takes his daring step in the post-Resurrection narrative: the dis-
ciples doubt after they worship. Peter's doubt is the loss of the earlier con-
fidence of faith. When Christ rescues him he worships and in this he is
joined by the other disciples. But in the later narrative, the reverse is true.
The disciples do not simply have confidence; they worship, and then some of
them actually become uncertain.
The man of faith must see his life reflected here. Matthew presents him with
clear teaching about what discipleship may involve: both exaltation and
depression, the confidence of Peter and also the precariousness of faith even
in the attitude of worship.
But the disciple must always be related to his Master. The stories would
be incomplete without the place of Christ in the action. There is an implied
contrast: if man wavers, Jesus stands steadfast. Discipleship can draw its
only certainty from him. Though the unsure disciple has a necessary place
in Matthew's scheme, this does not, of course, mean that uncertainty itself
can have any justification. Above all, man may not disbelieve in the face of
Christ, though he may refuse to be a disciple.
In both stories the lack of assurance of the disciples underlines Christ's
own status. Here, says the evangelist, the Lord acts. He possesses all power
and authority. The phrase eyco ei|ji, ' I am', appears in both narratives.
This is used of the name of Yahweh in Matt. xxii. 32 and elsewhere only
sparingly, though note viii. 9, the word of the centurion who is under author-
ity. In the earlier scene it is pronounced as the disciples cry out in the
pitching boat when Jesus approaches them. In the second story the pro-
nouncement comes in the command to the Church and the promise of
his abiding presence to the end of the age. The term denotes the absolute
nature ofJesus—Jesus who saves Peter and whose word resolves the situation
in the final narrative without any need to speak of the disciples' doubt being
removed. Commissioned by this Christ, man must obey. The restored

1
W . C. Allen, International Critical Commentary, St Matthew's Gospel, p . 305, a n d see p . 303, ' I t is
inconceivable that Matthew should end his gospel leaving his readers with the impression that some
of the Eleven doubted the fact of Christ's resurrection.' Allen reads doubt as disbelief.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Apr 2015 IP address: 193.61.135.80

580 I. P. ELLIS
disciple is to teach all that he commands and to make disciples of all
others.
The gospel ends on the note of discipleship made confident again in the
presence of the Lord himself, now freed from the limitations of his purely
earthly existence.
Matthew's account in these last five verses of his gospel is not, therefore,
about disbelief found in the innermost circle of Jesus' followers when he
appears to them after his Resurrection. Strictly speaking, Matthew's purpose
is not to describe a post-Resurrection appearance as such, to 'prove' what
has been said earlier in the account of the empty tomb. He uses a tradition
about an appearance in Galilee (or, perhaps, builds up a narrative on the
hint in Mark xvi. 7 as complemented in Matt, xxviii. 1 o) to embody certain
distinctive teaching of his own. In that teaching, a description of the ap-
pearance and manner of the risen Christ is not necessary, and hence it is
summarily treated, but the otherwise puzzling detail about the disciples'
doubt (uncertainty) is important.
The point of the passage is the authoritative word of Jesus to the Church
(xxviii. 18—20). It is given on the sacred mountain of revelation where, in his
earthly life, Jesus had given the new dispensation to his followers. On that
mountain they see him once again: Matthew speaks as if Jesus was already
waiting there. The tryst is kept; Jesus moves towards them and they prostrate
themselves before him. The economical yet deliberate wording should be
noted. Christ comes as a king to his disciples, neither acknowledging their
obeisance nor dispelling their doubt. These are human actions, contradictory
in character, but they are unimportant compared with the fact that Christ
speaks to his Church in the words which follow.
Yet, though any subjective interest is missing, the disciple must see his
place here. Matthew has said before, and now implies again, that disciple-
ship must be firm and unwavering, the consequence of true faith. The
uncertainty and lack of conviction among the eleven are a commentary on
the command of the Lord to make disciples of all. This cannot be done
in the strength of man. It is only possible because Christ is with his Church
always, to the end of the present world order. Nowhere more clearly is the
disciple ' under authority' than in this last narrative, and it is a fitting culmina-
tion to Matthew's doctrine of the Church.
A subsidiary point in the narrative may be that of John xx. 29—'blessed
are they who have not seen but believe'—but the main emphasis would seem
to be as it has been described above, not disbelief'in the Resurrected One but
failure to realize and act on the conviction demanded in true discipleship.
I. P. ELLIS

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 17 Apr 2015 IP address: 193.61.135.80