It strikes me that there are two primary considerations to be discussed concerning Thomas. The first is the character of the man. The second is the application of his example for ourselves and for our time. These two are in reality one, but shall be considered under separate heads.

As to the character of Thomas, there is longstanding tradition that focuses on his doubts here at the end. Doubting Thomas: His nickname may have been Didymus back then, but we know him by this later appellation. And, to be sure, the evidence is clear that during this post-Resurrection week he did have serious doubts. But, then, so did the others. Peter clearly had doubts as to what remained if Jesus was going quietly to His execution. The reports we have of the apostles’ reaction to those who first encountered the risen Christ are hardly evidence of faith believing. So, Thomas, in his doubts, is something of an everyman. The only possible distinction we can really find is one of degree. Or, we might say the distinction lies in his openness as to his perspective. Did the others really require any less evidence than he?

With that in mind, I am inclined to concur with Adam Clarke’s advice, when considering the first appearance of Thomas in the text. He says that where a man’s character is concerned, any ambiguous comment such as this should be seen in the most positive light, as “both justice and mercy require it.” Honestly, since we have but brief sketches of the man, we must take most everything we know about him as ambiguous. Even his doubts on this occasion are somewhat ambiguous. It is unbelief. Jesus leaves no room for question there. But, then, it took much less to put an end to that unbelief than Thomas supposed in the end.

So, then, we see a certain tendency towards despondency in Thomas. But, then, for the most part we are only shown Thomas in moments of particular crisis. He is introduced to us at the point when Jesus is declaring His intent to return to the vicinity of Jerusalem to tend to Lazarus, who is dead, although the disciples haven’t quite grasped that point yet. The point they all understood was that as popular as Jesus may have been back home in Galilee, He was not held in high esteem by the powers that be in Jerusalem. In fact, it was patently obvious that they had it in for Him. Thus, Thomas only points out what they all knew: Going to Jerusalem was exceedingly risky, and not just for Jesus. It would be just as risky for anybody associated with Him.

“Let us go, then, and we can all die together with Him.” How we hear that statement may just reveal more about our own thought processes than it does about his! Do we hear that as a cynically snide remark? It just might be because that’s the sort of crack we would be making in such a situation. Great plan, there, Jesus. Yeah. We’ve been gadding about for the last three years. Let’s just chuck it all and walk into the trap we know lies ahead. Why not?

Or, as so many of the commentators offer, is this intended to steel the resolve of the others? Could it be that Thomas actually has more devotion to Jesus than the rest? Could it be that at this point his faith is actually more solid, such that he really means what he says? Yes, friends, it seems suicidal to pursue the course Jesus is setting, but we are a team, are we not? We have faced much together already, let us face this together as well, and if we die, we die. Is that not the very faith we see commended over and over again? Is that not the heart of the martyr on display?

In fact, while Fausset concludes that Thomas was a man inclined toward despondency, yet a man of great courage, I would suggest he is very much like all the others, very much like ourselves. The distinction lies not in his propensity for seeing the risks and facing them, or even in his requirement for evidence. The distinction that peers out of the pages at me is that he is more willing to be honest. He has something of David’s openness of expression. David’s Psalms, I have often noted, are not in any sense politically correct. They are not his attempts to put on a Sunday face before God. They are a baring of his heart, a pouring out of both his best and his worst thoughts. They are, in a word, honest. Thomas is honest, as well. The others may have been thinking that they were signing their own death warrants by heading into Jerusalem. He was willing to make the statement. The others may have been waiting for personal, physical evidence rather than taking the word of the women. He was willing to state outright that he needed such proof. That, it would seem to me, sets his character in a far more positive light. We are, after all, called to just such transparency, certainly before God. We are also called to be open and honest in our dealings one with another. Thomas ought to be a hero in our eyes. Honest Tom would seem to be a much more fitting way to remember him.

Thomas clearly has a mixture of faith and doubt. I dare say that so does every one of us who has ever come to Christ. It may well be that the same applies to the majority of those who have not come to Christ, given a loose enough definition of faith. He is also described as being one who “desired to test all truth by the evidence of his senses.” [ISBE] Again, I must stress that the same desire appears to have been with all the apostles, and even with the women before them. Nobody in the scenes following Jesus’ burial seems overly inclined to accept His resurrection on the word of another, not even when that other is an angel! Every last one of them, whether demanding proof or merely rejecting what others were saying, wanted the evidence of his or her senses.

Bear that in mind when Fausset demands that Jesus was giving Thomas a gentle rebuke for requiring such hard evidence to believe. It may be a fine distinction, but I would suggest that the rebuke that is here is not for wanting evidence, but solely for the unbelief itself. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that we ought to want evidence before we put our faith in a thing. Faith without evidence is no faith at all, only a certain susceptibility to suggestion. No, such rebuke as there is lies more in their failure to grasp what they have been taught all along. How many times had He told them that He must die, that He would rise the third day? Why, then, are they so quick to fall into doubts and unbelief when He does die? Why, then, are they not anxiously looking for the evidence of His resurrection? Why, I suppose, do they find it so unlikely that His words have been fulfilled when others come with the news?

Again, Thomas is clearly in a state of unbelief in this final scene. Were it not so, there would be no reason for Jesus to be saying, “Be not unbelieving!” Stop it. Remove the possibility of unbelief, Thomas. If your eyes do not suffice, then touch. If touch does not suffice, then prod. But put that growing unbelief to an end and believe! That’s why I’m here. That’s why you’re here.

Thomas needed evidence. This is not a crime against heaven. In fact, it might very well be taken as greatly honoring heaven and heaven’s God. Consider the many admonitions that became necessary in the early church; warnings against all these false claimants coming with their false messages and their false wonders. People were quick to accept these supposed representatives of the Christ on the slimmest of evidence, and even when the evidence was either totally lacking or clearly contrary to the claim. But, he said! His friend backs him up. He must be for real.

How many are in the pews today giving every claimant to the mantel of pastor or reverend or whatever label they may choose an unquestioned validity? How many really consider what is being preached and check it against the Scriptures? How many would know a false word if they heard it? I fear the numbers are far lower than one would like. How many have a faith built on evidence of any sort? Do you know why there is that whole sector we think of as social Christians? They are Christians because Mom and Dad were Christians. They are Christians because they were dragged along to Sunday School every week when they were children. But, their faith is as nothing. It has never been examined, let alone tested. They are in the same denomination they grew up in not because they have carefully considered the evidence. They haven’t even looked at the evidence, and could really care less about it. It’s tradition. It’s socially acceptable behavior. It’s a sense of community, or maybe not much more than another networking opportunity. What’s faith got to do with it?

There is also that sector which finds faith and reason somehow wholly opposed one to the other. There are signs of that even in the articles on Thomas. Fausset, for example, makes this bold statement: The “demand for sense evidence […] is alien to the very idea of faith.” It’s rather odd, I must say, to find this insistence that we ought require no evidence joined with the statement, “Sometimes faith that has overcome doubt is hardier than that of those who never doubted.” How, pray tell, does he suppose doubt was overcome? Sheer force of will? A supernatural finger coming in and hitting the switch? There would at least be a grain of truth to the latter. But, unbelief is, unless it is so strong that it will reject all evidence outright, a need for evidence.

Let’s break this into strata. There is the faith that is built upon evidence. Then, there is the faith that is built on effectively nothing. There is unbelief which is only for lack of evidence Then, there is unbelief which has been hit on the nose with the evidence but insists on maintaining the evidence is false. These are the things which appear to us, and we may well have spent time in every one of those strata. In the end, though, there are only the two. There is faith built on evidence and there is unbelief built on willful rejection of the evidence. “Therefore every one of you is without excuse” (Ro 2:1), “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what was made, so that they are without excuse” (Ro 1:20).

As for those two middle categories? They are transitory at best. A faith without evidence will fall apart at the slightest provocation. A faith that is based on some exciting experience, some seemingly miraculous event, and nothing else? It is so capable of being misled as to be more dangerous than unbelief! That’s the sort of faith which sends its owner along to the cults and false religions that abound in our day.

The thing we ought to see in Thomas is that his need for evidence at this staged did not indicate a loss of love for Christ, or even for his fellow apostles. Faith had been shaken, to be sure. Yours will be as well, if it has not been shaken already. But, there’s a distinct difference between being shaken and being broken and destroyed. He had not yet given up on God. It’s possible, even likely, that he was questioning his support of Jesus at this stage, but notice: He had not gone that hard path of outright rejection. If it was complete rejection he would not have been found with the others that critical evening. No. Something held him still. Faith remained, even if it was being crowded out by the unbelief of his present. Faith remained, and needed but that touch of evidence to burst back in full flame.

Now, we may cavil at how Thomas seemingly builds his faith upon signs and wonders rather than the word of God. But, is that really what happens in this instance? Yes, there has been an undeniable wonder. It’s hardly the first they’ve witnessed, is it? Neither can we deny that what Jesus taught was the authoritative word of God. Of course, we have the benefit of hindsight, which these men did not. Do we so lightly evaluate those who claim to speak His word today? We ought not to do so. We are encouraged, even admonished, to test the words and see if they be so. Even Paul, whose insights into the Truth of God are so great as to confound even today, refused to be taken at his word. It was not enough. No! Check the Scriptures yourselves. See if these things be so. Just because somebody’s written a treatise doesn’t make him accurate. Just because everybody’s raving about the latest blockbuster from some purportedly Christian author doesn’t mean his writing is true to Scripture, only that it’s popular. Indeed, it could be argued that such popularity is more likely to be evidence to the contrary. More will prefer ear-tickling soft talk to the hard Truths of Scripture.

Jesus was the speaker of hard Truths. Much of what He taught, while assuredly authoritative, stood in stark contrast to the received wisdom of the time. There is a reason He found Himself so often in conflict with the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and every other religious institution. His message put them all in peril of their status and livelihoods. His messages were so difficult that it is made abundantly clear that even His closest disciples struggled to truly understand. They struggled, and for the most part they failed. Here in these post-Resurrection scenes we have the evidence. He is risen? Seems unlikely doesn’t it? True, He said something to that effect, and true, we have friend Lazarus here as proof of concept. But, Jesus Himself risen back to life after that death? It’s going to take more than your word to convince me of it!

How near that mindset is to the popular adage that a thing which seems too good to be true probably is! And there is a great deal of truth to that adage. There is a time when we ought to question if not everything, than a goodly portion of the whole. If we are going to bank our eternal condition on this business of what we believe, I should think we’d want to be dead certain, if you’ll pardon the potential pun. If we’re convinced, truly convinced, that Christianity with its faith in Christ and faith by Christ is the sole determinant between eternal life and eternal torment; if we are only convinced at this stage that there is such a fork in the road of eternity with abundant life on one side and torment on the other, oughtn’t we be making as certain as we can the basis for our choice?

Faith is not antithetical to the desire for evidence. Faith demands evidence. How can we be convinced by the arguments if we haven’t even heard them? And, no: “Oh, look at the shiny lights” doesn’t count as evidence. Performance of miracles, or what we perceive to be miracles doesn’t count as evidence. The text of the very Scriptures we seek to build our faith upon insist that we understand this. And yet, many chase after the latest miracle worker, wander the nation to be at the next stop for the miracle express. But, the proper basis for faith is the Word.

Thomas, with the evidence of Jesus standing before him, believed. Did he believe solely because he had seen Jesus there? I stress the word ‘solely’. Yes, by Jesus’ words it would seem that it was seeing Jesus there that propelled him out of his growing unbelief and back into a now rock-solid faith. But, it wasn’t solely seeing Jesus. He had the word. Jesus standing before him, alive and well after so cruel a death, only confirmed the evidence of the word. It did not supplant the word. It certainly didn’t contradict the word. It confirmed. This, I should say, is proper where the word is so incredible.

The Old Testament prophets were required to offer some evidence for their credentials before they were going to be heard on greater things. Jesus, as the Prophet, would surely do the same, and He had. If I continue on that avenue, those older prophets, apart from describing their call to office, would also point to some lesser matter of prophecy that they had spoken, for which the evidence had already shown them accurate. I was right in that case, you should heed me on this. Given that a true prophet was not allowed so much as one error, they might well point back to a growing record of accuracy. And the more they could point back to, the more call to hear them as they began pointing forward.

Jesus laid out a great deal of evidence. But, much of His evidence came in the form of pure doctrine or in the form of signs and wonders. On the one hand, the pure doctrine was a desperate need of the people, and they recognized it when it came. On the other hand, it seems that the established order required these signs and wonders as the official proof of God’s endorsement upon His chosen Messiah. How much validity there was to this demand is questionable, but it was the habit.

This becomes difficult in that Jesus taught that these same evidences would be the mark of His representatives. Signs and wonders will follow. I would stress the follow part, though. Never were they intended to be the primary interest. And, as I have already pointed out, it wasn’t to be just His true representatives who could perform such signs. Just as when Moses confronted Pharaoh, there would be plenty of signs and wonders performed by enemy forces. Signs and wonders will follow, but they are hardly the unimpeachable badge of Truth. No. God’s representatives are accepted based on their firm adherence to the word of God and the Word of God, not by their capacity to prophesy, not by their mystic healing practices, not by speaking in tongues, not even by the raising of the dead.

This is not to say that such signs and wonders are no longer possible in our day. And this seems to be the dividing line. There are those who are convinced that every claimant to signs and wonders is necessarily legitimate and ought to be heard on that basis alone, if not downright idolized. Then there are those who are convinced that any such claim is obviously utter nonsense and its claimant ought to be avoided like the plague. The truth, I believe, lies elsewhere. God is still able, certainly. But, I rather doubt He’s inclined, where such evidences become objects of idolatry rather than confirmations of Truth.

Well! I’ve wandered, haven’t I? Let’s come back to our subject. “Thomas was permitted to doubt that we might not doubt.” So Augustine wrote. And, I note that at least one author found in the ending of his doubt a reason to potentially condemn any who would now find themselves doubting. But, I would read it rather differently. Thomas was permitted to doubt. That much is certain. He was chosen of God. His final outcome, I would maintain, was certain. It was the road he took to get there that might provide for detours and delays. But even that road lies subject to the Providence of God. So, we can add to his being permitted to doubt the undoubted fact that this permission was given for a purpose, a good purpose.

Was he permitted to doubt that we might not doubt? I’m not so sure that identifies the goal, at least not the immediate goal. If it was simply a matter of removing our own doubts, how is Thomas any more effective than the ten witnesses already established? If we will not take the word of those ten that they saw Jesus alive and walking, eating even, then why would hearing Thomas carry any more weight? Is it just because he voiced his doubts first? But, then, we have only the word of one of the ten on that! And, if we’ve already discounted his testimony as to the Christ why would we suddenly find him believable as he adds Thomas to the story? And why wouldn’t we rather find the whole business of Thomas’ encounter suspect, given what the others have written?

No. It think maybe that falls just short of the purpose. Thomas, I would say, was no more or less permitted to doubt than the others. That we have his account given us is that we might not be overwhelmed with discouragement by our own doubts. It informs us that even the greatest of the elect may know these times of doubt. I might even go so far as to say that they are all but assured of it. But, it is a faith that has been sorely tried that becomes firm. Consider the testimonies given this man. The ISBE says, “His love of Christ was sincere even in the midst of shaken faith.” McClintock and Strong offers the thought that, “while slow to believe, [he was] ardent in his belief when once it is established.”

Indeed, I am particularly pleased with this statement from that same source. “We find that a resolute and lively faith is always necessarily combined with a sense of its importance, and with a desire to keep its objects unalloyed and free from error and superstition.” Do you see? Thomas requiring evidence needn’t suggest an excessive skepticism on his part. Yes, we must accede to what Jesus indicates about the situation, that there was indeed a progressing tide of unbelief in the man. But, it was not a willing, willful unbelief. His rejection of the testimony of the others shouldn’t be seen in that light. Rather, it gives reason to believe that he had a great concern for the Truth. He did indeed recognize the great, we might even say supreme importance of having not just a ‘lively faith’, but one founded on Truth. If faith is to be set upon Truth, then surely, we ought to with like diligence guard ourselves against creeping error! Surely we, like Thomas, ought to require more than the opinion of man to cause us to alter our doctrine.

I conclude back where I began. Thomas was no more doubting than the others, no less distraught and disturbed by events. Neither do I find it necessary even to find him more morose or despondent than the others. What I do find is that Thomas is more transparent, more open about how he’s really seeing things. Peter may be the one to blurt out one thing or another, but often his pronouncements seem a matter of emotional excess, or a desire to put out his piety for all to see. Thomas doesn’t play that game. Rather, he is considered in what he speaks, and he speaks what he’s thinking in unvarnished fashion. Yes, the situation towards which we are headed appears deadly. Let’s not pretend it isn’t. But, let’s not be swayed by that knowledge. Look, after all, at Who is with us! No, we really don’t understand yet where You are going. We may nod wisely, and try and appear as if we do, but we don’t. The others may not say it, but we’re all equally befuddled here. Could You explain? And now, “I need proof!” The others had required nothing less and had received nothing less. They were just a tad more circumspect about it.

If find myself more and more respectful of this lesser known Apostle. There is much in his example that we would do well to follow. Am I so transparent with my God? I know I can be. I know I should be. I know, too, that too often I am not. I still fool myself into thinking I can hide my doubts and confusion behind a face of pious certainty. But, it is only myself I fool. God is not unaware. Am I so careful of the Truth I have been given? I hope so! May, I, though, not discount the wonder of my God in my determination to guard His Word!