Was St. Thomas Really a ‘Doubter’?

It’s almost impossible to speak of St. Thomas in the Western Christian tradition without attaching to him the somewhat ignominious epithet of “Doubting,” one which earns him both our sympathies but also costs him perhaps some of the respect that is given to other apostles. Perhaps some of us wonder how, after hearing of the resurrection and then seeing Christ in person, St. Thomas could still have doubts.

But the St. Thomas Christians of India—an apostolic church that traces its founding to the vigorous mission activity of the so-called doubting apostle—say he’s been misunderstood. Here is how he is seen in that tradition, according to a recent National Geographic article that quotes the director of a manuscript library in Kerala, India:

In India, Thomas is revered as a bold missionary. In the West, he represents the believer who wrestles with uncertainty. “The classic portrayal of Thomas,” [Columba] Stewart said, “is the doubting Thomas. That’s a little inaccurate, because it’s not so much that he doubted the resurrection but that he needed a personal encounter with Jesus to make the resurrection real. So you might think of him as the pragmatic Thomas or the forensic Thomas. The guy who’s so experiential that he said, ‘I need to put my finger in the wounds in his hands and in his side.’ And this experience gave him the fuel he needed to do amazing things.”

Thomas’s moment of incredulity has proved a two-edged sword in the history of Christian thought. On the one hand, some theologians are quick to point out that his doubt is only natural, echoing the uncertainty, if not the deep skepticism, felt by millions in regard to metaphysical matters. How can we know? That Thomas challenged the risen Christ, probed the wounds, and then believed, some say, lends deeper significance to his subsequent faith.

Another way of putting what I think Ms. Stewart is trying to say is that St. Thomas had a lively balance between faith and reason. Reason would suggest that if the man before him had truly risen—and was the same person that had truly been crucified—that he should be able to put his fingers in the wounds (or at least be able to see evidence of the wounds). It’s a re-interpretation that’s certainly worth pondering, especially in a Catholic Christian tradition which places so much emphasis on the interplay of faith and reason.

Click here to read my previous post for St. Thomas’ recent feast day and click here for my Easter season profile of the apostle. 

Stephen Beale

By

Stephen Beale is a freelance writer based in Providence, Rhode Island. Raised as an evangelical Protestant, he is a convert to Catholicism. He is a former news editor at GoLocalProv.com and was a correspondent for the New Hampshire Union Leader, where he covered the 2008 presidential primary. He has appeared on Fox News, C-SPAN and the Today Show and his writing has been published in the Washington Times, Providence Journal, the National Catholic Register and on MSNBC.com and ABCNews.com. A native of Topsfield, Massachusetts, he graduated from Brown University in 2004 with a degree in classics and history. His areas of interest include Eastern Christianity, Marian and Eucharistic theology, medieval history, and the saints. He welcomes tips, suggestions, and any other feedback at bealenews at gmail dot com. Follow him on Twitter at https://twitter.com/StephenBeale1

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • 2b-in1hca4evr

    I see nothing wrong with calling Thomas a doubter, I think it just shows his humanity. Let’s face it, I’m sure all of the apostles wondered what Jesus meant when He said He would rise from the dead. The other apostles were present when the risen Jesus appeared. Thomas’  “doubt” was probably more “I have to see for myself” than “I wont’ believe until I see for myself”. “Doubt” is not “denial.”

MENU