Did the disciples see Jesus in Galilee or Jerusalem first?

from the old testament

• The disciples seeing Jesus in Galilee or Jerusalem for the first time is not in the Old Testament.

from the new testament

• Each Gospel author had different motivations for writing. While their differences can generally be harmonized, harmonization between the four is more difficult in this case because of Luke’s differing account. This section will attempt to harmonize while acknowledging that perfect harmonization is not possible given the information we have.
• Jesus originally told the disciples that He would see them in Galilee after the resurrection (Matthew 26:32; Mark 14:28), setting the expectation that He would visit them there. Likewise, after the resurrection, the angels told the women, “Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you” (Matthew 28:7; cf. Mark 16:7). Therefore, the expectation is that Jesus will first see them in Galilee.
• However, Jesus doesn’t say that explicitly. Luke, who doesn’t record the comments about visiting Galilee, says that right after the resurrection Jesus appeared to two on the way to Emmaus, about seven miles outside of Jerusalem (Luke 24:13). When He left them, the two individuals ran back to Jerusalem to tell the disciples (Luke 24:33–34).
• Both Luke and John record Jesus’ appearance to the disciples in Jerusalem (Luke 24:36; John 20:19). However, while Luke says the eleven are there, John says that Thomas was not (John 20:24). To him, Jesus appeared a week later (John 20:26). John 21 also implies that at least Peter and perhaps even John were at neither appearance, not seeing Him until His appearance in Galilee (John 21:7). The differences between Luke and John can be harmonized as Luke conflating the appearances into one event whereas John more deliberately relayed Jesus' different appearances until all the disciples had seen Him.
• Matthew bypasses all appearances after Jesus’ resurrection, moving directly to a mountain in Galilee, saying, “The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted” (Matthew 28:16–17). Matthew appears to intentionally jump to the end by conflating everything that happened for those 40 days (cf. Acts 1:3) into that final appearance. Note that the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9ff) is unlikely to be original, meaning it’s best not to rely on the post-resurrection accounts found in that section. Mark, thus, adds nothing else to answer this question.
• John describes Jesus’ visit to Galilee more expansively but also more narrowly. The details are more extensive, but the focus is on Peter seeing Jesus for the first time after he had denied Him before the crucifixion. It’s unclear when this account happened. Given that Jesus could move to places instantly after His resurrection, it’s entirely possible that this event in Galilee was a different one than the one recorded in Matthew.
• After Matthew records Jesus in Galilee, he records Jesus giving His final instructions and ascending (Matthew 28:18–20). Luke also records Jesus’ ascension, but does so at Bethany, near Jerusalem, rather than in Galilee (Luke 24:50–53). This is the one instance that can’t be fully harmonized. It's possible that there's a time gap between Matthew 28:17 and v 18. Additionally, Luke may have intentionally kept the focus on Jerusalem (something he did more than the other Gospels) and collapsed Jesus' ascension with the first appearances. Given what we know, we can only speculate. However, the first-century believers accepted Luke as accurate. Additionally, as a society, they recounted history differently than we do now with detailed precision, and that may also explain why they weren't bothered about the differences. They understood that Matthew summarized Jesus’ 40 days at the end of the post-resurrection, whereas Luke summarized them at the beginning of that same period.

implications for today

Think about two people watching the exact same event happen. One remembers what was said; the other remembers who was there. One focuses on what happened first, while the other remembers what happened afterward. Each interprets the same event slightly differently, based on what they saw and how they interpreted it. Did their different details mean one of them was lying? Not necessarily—they simply saw the same event from different perspectives.

That’s helpful to remember when we read the four Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John describe the same resurrection events, but they don’t all give us the same details or arrange them in the same way. Different details don’t automatically mean different events—and they certainly don’t mean the testimony is false.

As we have seen, questions remain when harmonizing the four Gospel accounts. Taken as a whole, Jesus visited the disciples in both Jerusalem and Galilee. That, then, is the answer. However, each account—and particularly Luke—gives us different details.

What are we to do when we are faced with seeming contradictions between the Gospel accounts? Paul gives us the way to think about them in 2 Timothy 3:16–17. He said all Scripture is God-breathed, meaning it’s God’s words. Because God can't lie (Titus 1:2), all of it is accurate...even when we aren’t sure how to reconcile it.

Therefore, start by trusting the accounts. Experience with the four Gospels shows us that they often differ in detail. Their perspectives and theological purposes for writing are different. They were not writing for chronology or comprehensiveness and were free to select what they felt served their purpose best. We should trust that the differences in the accounts were logical to them and their readers. And, except for Luke’s comment about Bethany, the accounts are easy to harmonize. But even Luke’s reference has reasonable, if not perfectly satisfactory, explanations.

In real life, witness testimony is notoriously inconsistent. In that sense, the four Gospels read like genuine historical testimony rather than four reporters covering the events. When we remember that distinction, the differences aren’t so different after all!

However, unlike witnesses who make mistakes, everything written was as the Spirit moved them (2 Peter 1:21). This means the Gospels are very human accounts of the events surrounding Jesus, guided by the Spirit to record them accurately. As believers, let us ask our questions of the text with trust that it is God-breathed and inerrant and that God will make supposed contradictions make sense to us.