Matthew 27:45 - 56
45 From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land. 46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[c] lema sabachthani?”(which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).[d]
47 When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He’s calling Elijah.”
48 Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. 49 The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.”
50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
54 When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!”
55 Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph,[f] and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.
Questions:
ReplyDelete1. Darkness came for 3 hours. Was this an eclipse? Or something else?
2. What was Jesus shouting and how did it affect the people?
3. What is the significance of the torn curtain?
4. Who were these holy people who had died and come to life?
https://www.studylight.org/commentary/matthew/27-45.html says about the darkness:
ReplyDeleteIt is plain enough there was a darkness in Jerusalem, and over all Judea; and probably over all the people among whom Christ had for more than three years preached the everlasting Gospel; and that this darkness was supernatural is evident from this, that it happened during the passover, which was celebrated only at the full moon, a time in which it was impossible for the sun to be eclipsed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_darkness says about the darkness:
ReplyDeleteMiracle
Because it was known in ancient and medieval times that a solar eclipse could not take place during Passover (solar eclipses require a new moon while Passover only takes place during a full moon) it was considered a miraculous sign rather than a naturally occurring event.[31] The astronomer Johannes de Sacrobosco wrote, in his The Sphere of the World, "the eclipse was not natural, but, rather, miraculous and contrary to nature".[32] Modern writers who regard this as a miraculous event tend either to see it as operating through a natural phenomenon—such as volcanic dust or heavy cloud cover—or avoid explanation completely.
Naturalistic explanations
a solar eclipse could not have occurred on or near the Passover, when Jesus was crucified, and would have been too brief to account for three hours of darkness. The maximum possible duration of a total solar eclipse is seven minutes and 31.1 seconds.[35] The only total eclipse visible in Jerusalem in this era fell later in the year, on 24 November 29 CE at 11:05 AM.
Humphreys and Waddington speculated that the reference in the Luke Gospel to a solar eclipse must have been the result of a scribe wrongly amending the text, a claim historian David Henige describes as "indefensible".
Some writers have explained the crucifixion darkness in terms of sunstorms, heavy cloud cover, the aftermath of a volcanic eruption,[41] or a khamsin dust storm that tends to occur from March to May.[42] A popular work of the nineteenth century described it as an 'oppressive gloom' and suggested this was a typical phenomenon related to earthquakes.
Literary creation
A common view in modern scholarship is that the account in the synoptic gospels is a literary creation of the gospel writers, intended to heighten the importance of what they saw as a theologically significant event.
conclude that the author did not intend the description to be taken literally.
The image of darkness over the land would have been understood by ancient readers as a cosmic sign, a typical element in the description of the death of kings and other major figures by writers such as Philo, Dio Cassius, Virgil, Plutarch and Josephus.[48] Géza Vermes describes the darkness account as "part of the Jewish eschatological imagery of the day of the Lord. It is to be treated as a literary rather than historical phenomenon notwithstanding naive scientists and over-eager television documentary makers, tempted to interpret the account as a datable eclipse of the sun. They would be barking up the wrong tree".
https://www.gty.org/resources/bible-qna/BQ032913/why-did-jesus-cry-my-god-my-god-why-have-you-forsaken-me on what Jesus shouted:
ReplyDeleteBecause Jesus was quoting the well-known Psalm 22, there could have been little doubt in the minds of those who were standing there as to what Jesus was saying. They had been taunting Him with His claim to be God’s Son (v. 43), and an appeal for divine help would have been expected. Their saying, “This man is calling for Elijah,” was not conjecture about what He said but was simply an extension of their cruel, cynical mockery.
In this unique and strange miracle, Jesus was crying out in anguish because of the separation He now experienced from His heavenly Father for the first and only time in all of eternity. It is the only time of which we have record that Jesus did not address God as Father. Because the Son had taken sin upon Himself, the Father turned His back.
But because Jesus died as a substitute sacrifice for the sins of the world, the righteous heavenly Father had to judge Him fully according to that sin.
The Father forsook the Son because the Son took upon Himself “our transgressions, … our iniquities” (Isa. 53:5).
https://carm.org/questions/about-jesus/why-did-jesus-cry-out-my-god-my-god-why-have-you-forsaken-me says about what Jesus shouted:
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, Jesus quoted Psalm 22:1 which begins with, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" Jesus quoted this Psalm in order to draw attention to it and the fact that He was fulfilling it there on the cross. Consider verses 11-18 in Psalm 22:
"Be not far from me, for trouble is near; For there is none to help.12 Many bulls have surrounded me; Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled me. 13 They open wide their mouth at me, As a ravening and a roaring lion. 14 I am poured out like water, And all my bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It is melted within me. 15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And my tongue cleaves to my jaws; And Thou dost lay me in the dust of death. 16 For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet. 17 I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me; 18 They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots.
The term 'dogs' was used by the Jews to refer to Gentiles (cf. Matt. 15:21-28). His heart has melted within Him (v. 14). During the crucifixion process, the blood loss causes the heart to beat harder and harder and become extremely fatigued. Dehydration occurs (v. 15). Verses 16b-18 speak of piercing His hands and feet and dividing his clothing by casting lots. This is exactly what happen as described in Matt. 27:35.
Psalm 22 was written about 1000 years before Christ was born. At that time, crucifixion had not yet been invented. So, when Rome ruled over Israel, it became the Roman means of capital punishment imposed upon the Jews whose biblical means of execution was stoning. Nevertheless, Jesus is pointing to the scriptures to substantiate His messianic mission.
2 Cor. 5:21 says, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." It is possible that at some moment on the cross when Jesus became sin on our behalf, that God the Father, in a sense, turned His back upon the Son. It says in Hab. 1:13 that God is too pure to look upon evil. Therefore, it is possible that when Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24), that the Father, spiritually, turned away. At that time, the Son may have cried out.
One thing is for sure. We have no capacity to appreciate the utterly horrific experience of having the sins of the world put upon the Lord Jesus as He hung in excruciating pain from that cross. The physical pain was immense. The spiritual one must have been even greater.
That shows us clearly how much God loves us.
https://redeeminggod.com/why-have-you-forsaken-me/ addresses Jesus crying out:
ReplyDeleteThis question from Jesus on the cross is found in Matthew 27:46-47 (and in Mark 15:34), and is a quotation from Psalm 22:1. It is asked by Jesus as He suffers on the cross, and faces the sin of the world being poured out upon Him.
The main point of the question above is that since both Jesus and God the Father knew that God would raise Jesus from the dead (Matt 12:40), in what sense what Jesus forsaken by God?
In other words, if being forsaken means to be abandoned, rejected, despised, how could Jesus say, “Why have you forsaken me?” when He knew that He would be raised from the dead, and therefore, not ultimately forsaken, that is, not really abandoned, rejected, or despised?
The answer, I think, lies in understanding to some degree the eternal relationship that has existed between God the Father and God the Son. Understanding this relationship, and the cry of Jesus from the cross, leads to a shocking idea (for me, anyway) about the experience of Jesus on the cross.
Since God the Father and God the Son have existed in an eternal relationship, they had never been separated by anything for any length of time in any way, shape, or form. Nothing had ever come between them the way of will, desires, intentions, thoughts, or purposes.
Yet when Jesus went to the cross, He took the sins of all people, throughout all time, upon Himself. He bore our sins in His own body (1 Pet 2:24). He who knew no sin, became sin for us (2 Cor 5:21). He became a curse for us (Gal 3:13).
I believe that from the perspective of Jesus on the cross, it seemed that God had “abandoned” Him to sin.
Though sin cannot damage or pollute God in any way, sin does cause a separation between Himself and the sinner. It appears that when Jesus took the sin of all people upon Himself, a separation came between Him and God that had never before existed.
So when Jesus cried out, “Why have you forsaken me?” it was because He was experiencing a brokenness in His relationship with God the Father that they had never before experienced. Yes, He knew that God had not finally and ultimately forsaken Him, and He knew that He would be raised again in three days, but the cry of Jesus from the cross is not about those things, but about the separation from God He experienced for the very time in all eternity.
This experience of separation from God elicited the cry of Jesus, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” He had never experienced this separation before, and though He knew that He would be reunited with God in a short while, the pain and agony of the separation was caused this cry of despair from Jesus.
https://redeeminggod.com/why-have-you-forsaken-me/ continued:
ReplyDeleteBut had God truly forsaken Jesus? I don’t think so. I don’t think God did forsake Jesus any more than God forsakes us. Jesus was not a God-forsaken God.
I might be going out too far on a theological limb here, but there is a part of me that thinks it is only here on the cross where Jesus finally experienced the pain and turmoil of what it is like to be a sinful human being separated from God. Though Jesus came as a human being to rescue us from our sinful plight and in so doing, experienced almost everything He could as a human, He never really experienced the fearful and agonizing predicament of being separated from God by sin.
It was only when He took our sin upon Himself on the cross, it was only when the crushing despair of being separated from God came upon Him, that He finally felt what we humans have lived with since we were born. The pain and anguish we feel every day, the suffering of being separated from God that has so numbed our souls, the despair and fear that drives us to live as we do, was felt for the very first time by Jesus on the cross when sin came upon Him.
Do you see? This is not just the cry of Jesus on the cross. This is the cry of every single person on earth.
It is our pain, our fear, our hurt, our despair, finally being given a voice. It is the cry of God fully entering into our broken condition and fully experiencing the sense of separation from God that sin causes, and crying out in anguish and despair over this sense of loss, “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?”
It is the cry of every single human being on earth. Jesus was giving voice to our pain and anguish.
The original question was “How can Jesus say ‘Why have you forsaken me?’ when God did not actually forsake Him?”
Yes. And just as Jesus felt what we all feel to be forsaken, so also, none of us have been forsaken, just as Jesus Himself was not.
Though you may feel abandoned by God, you are no more abandoned than was Jesus. Though you may feel forsaken, forgotten, neglected, and overlooked, these things are no more true of you than they were of Jesus. Though you may feel unloved, this is no more true of you than it was for Jesus.
Though Jesus cried out, “Why have you forsaken me?” He was NOT forsaken. And neither are we.
This is a feeling that Jesus experienced, which is a feeling we ALL experience.
And this feeling does not come because we are forsaken, but because of sin. Sin has separated us from God; it has not separated God from us. This is why God had to reconcile the world to Himself (1 Cor 5:19). He didn’t need to reconcile Himself to the world, for He never left or abandoned us.
(My 2 cents: I don't think I agree with the above premise).
http://www.baptiststart.com/print/forsaken_me.html says about what Jesus shouted:
ReplyDeleteWhat did Jesus mean when He cried out on the cross, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46, Psalm 22:1) Was He really and truly forsaken by the Father, or was it a figure of speech? Was He doubting God? Why did He ask? Did he not know the answer?
To understand the answer to these questions one must understand the nature of the person of Christ, the nature of His sufferings, and the nature of His question.
There are several reasons for the incarnation of Christ. One is that God is immortal and cannot die; Jesus took on humanity in order to be able to die.
Another reason for the incarnation is that God Cannot be Tempted. "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone" (James 1:13). And He would have to be tempted in order to become a sinless sacrifice (not merely innocent, but tested and proven without sin).
Jesus was not merely God encased in a body. His humanity was real inside and out. He possessed a human spirit and was psychologically human.
Though fully and truly God, Jesus did not exercise His prerogatives as God. He never ceased to be who He was. He simply chose not to exercise His powers as God. Instead He functioned as the prototype of the Spirit filled man.
He played by the rules by which we have to play. He replied on the Father to lead Him in what to say, "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak"
He relied on the Father's power to perform His signs and miracles.
Jesus lived in continuous fellowship with the Father, in continuous obedience to the Father, in continuous dependance upon the Father, and thus experienced continuous empowerment from the Father. On earth, He was the proto-type of the Spirit-filled man.
God's Attitude Toward Sin is One of Wrath and Fury.
The reason for this horrifying wrath is the horrid, offensive nature of sin. God hates sin. It deserves to be punished. It should be punished. God is just; it will be punished. Nahum 1:3 affirms, "The LORD is slow to anger and great in power, And will not at all acquit the wicked." God cannot simply overlook sin. He is too holy to just pretend it didn't happen. He is not a Santa Claus figure, who for all the threatening about being nice, still comes any way.
Christ's Substitutionary Work on the Cross Made Him the Object of God's Wrath
On the cross Christ was experiencing sin for us. "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2nd Corinthians 5:21).
"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree')" (Galatians 3:13)
Was Jesus Actually Forsaken?
In that He, in fact, experienced the wrath of God on the cross Jesus was in some way, forsaken.
Jesus, as Man, had Lived in continuous fellowship with the Father - "And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him." (John 8:29). Yet, now, at the cross His fellowship with the Father is broken.
Notice that Jesus speaks as Man to God, not as Son to Father. His prayer addresses, "My God, My God," not "My Father." Jesus is functioning as a man functions and dies on the cross functioning as a man.
On the cross Jesus never ceased to be who He is -- God. "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself" (2nd Corinthians 5:19). Jesus functioned as a man, really and fully man -- and He died as a man, experiencing suffering and death and the unknown as a man. He was forsaken not only as our sin bearer, but as a man. He was forsaken as our substitute... He was forsaken that God might never leave nor forsake us. (Hebrews 13:5; Romans 8:31-39)
http://www.gotquestions.org/temple-veil-torn.html addresses the curtain:
ReplyDeleteQuestion: "What was the significance of the temple veil being torn in two when Jesus died?"
Answer: During the lifetime of Jesus, the holy temple in Jerusalem was the center of Jewish religious life. The temple was the place where animal sacrifices were carried out and worship according to the Law of Moses was followed faithfully. Hebrews 9:1-9 tells us that in the temple a veil separated the Holy of Holies—the earthly dwelling place of God’s presence—from the rest of the temple where men dwelt. This signified that man was separated from God by sin (Isaiah 59:1-2). Only the high priest was permitted to pass beyond this veil once each year (Exodus 30:10; Hebrews 9:7) to enter into God's presence for all of Israel and make atonement for their sins (Leviticus 16).
There is uncertainty as to the exact measurement of a cubit, but it is safe to assume that this veil was somewhere near 60 feet high. An early Jewish tradition says that the veil was about four inches thick, but the Bible does not confirm that measurement. The book of Exodus teaches that this thick veil was fashioned from blue, purple and scarlet material and fine twisted linen.
The size and thickness of the veil makes the events occurring at the moment of Jesus’ death on the cross so much more momentous. “And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom” (Matthew 27:50-51a).
So, what do we make of this? What significance does this torn veil have for us today? Above all, the tearing of the veil at the moment of Jesus' death dramatically symbolized that His sacrifice, the shedding of His own blood, was a sufficient atonement for sins. It signified that now the way into the Holy of Holies was open for all people, for all time, both Jew and Gentile.
When Jesus died, the veil was torn, and God moved out of that place never again to dwell in a temple made with hands (Acts 17:24). God was through with that temple and its religious system, and the temple and Jerusalem were left “desolate” (destroyed by the Romans) in A.D. 70, just as Jesus prophesied in Luke 13:35. As long as the temple stood, it signified the continuation of the Old Covenant. Hebrews 9:8-9 refers to the age that was passing away as the new covenant was being established (Hebrews 8:13).
In a sense, the veil was symbolic of Christ Himself as the only way to the Father (John 14:6). This is indicated by the fact that the high priest had to enter the Holy of Holies through the veil. Now Christ is our superior High Priest, and as believers in His finished work, we partake of His better priesthood. We can now enter the Holy of Holies through Him. Hebrews 10:19-20 says that the faithful enter into the sanctuary by the “blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the veil, that is, through his flesh.”
The veil in the temple was a constant reminder that sin renders humanity unfit for the presence of God. The fact that the sin offering was offered annually and countless other sacrifices repeated daily showed graphically that sin could not truly be atoned for or erased by mere animal sacrifices. Jesus Christ, through His death, has removed the barriers between God and man, and now we may approach Him with confidence and boldness (Hebrews 4:14-16).
http://www.truthortradition.com/articles/what-about-matthew-2752-and-53 addresses holy people being raised to life:
ReplyDeleteThere are no manuscripts of Matthew in Greek, Latin or Aramaic that omit these verses. All the textual families have the verse.
That brings up an interesting point: there are times when it would seem natural for those early theologians to have referred to these events, when in fact they did not. This fact is contributing evidence to the belief that when Matthew wrote his Gospel, it did not contain these verses. However, it is always dangerous to argue from silence.
In spite of the textual evidence for Matthew 27:52 and 53, there are some very disturbing things about these verses. First and foremost is that if “many” of the Old Testament saints arose and went to Jerusalem, why are they not mentioned anywhere else in the New Testament? In fact, the entire event is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible. This seems quite incredible if it actually occurred. Are we to believe that “many” Old Testament saints such as Joshua, Josiah or Jeremiah got up from the dead and entered Jerusalem, but never joined the apostles? When Lazarus was raised from the dead, he rejoined Jesus and the apostles.
The traditional answer to why these saints did not join the apostles or are mentioned elsewhere is that when the saints got up from the dead they were in their glorified bodies and at some point, perhaps very shortly after witnessing in Jerusalem, they ascended up into heaven, and thus would not have been around for the events in Acts. However, that cannot be, because Scripture is very clear that Jesus is the “firstfruits from the dead,” in other words, Jesus was the first person raised to everlasting life.
The Old Testament and Gospels have records of people being raised from the dead, but all those people were raised in their normal bodies and died again. They were not raised to everlasting life because Christ had not yet been raised from the dead. The “many holy people” Matthew refers to as being raised were raised when Jesus died, and not after his resurrection, so they could not have been raised to everlasting life.
where were they when the apostles were first hearing about the resurrection? Evidence for the resurrection was coming to the Apostles from many places. Peter and John went to the empty tomb, but were not convinced (John 20:3-10). Mary Magdalene told them she had seen Jesus, but they still did not believe (Mark 16:9-11). Later Mary and all the women told the disciples about the angel at the tomb who said Christ was raised, but they still did not believe (Luke 24:1-11).
http://www.truthortradition.com/articles/what-about-matthew-2752-and-53 (continued):
ReplyDeleteAnother question to be asked is where were these “many saints” on the Day of Pentecost? The number of disciples was specifically given at about 120. That is not a large number considering the many lives that Jesus touched. Are we to believe that those saints who were raised from the dead were included in that number? There is just no evidence for that, yet it is difficult to believe that the “many” saints who rose from the dead would not join the disciples. What else would they do? Where would they go? All of their families were long dead and they would not have had any jobs or places to stay. Certainly they would have joined the disciples for support, yet they are missing on the Day of Pentecost.
Consider also that the unbelievers and the critics of the apostles never mentioned them. The religious leaders of Jerusalem, for example, accused the apostles, saying, “…you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching…(Acts 5:28). Surely, if even a few Old Testament believers were also in Jerusalem and had appeared “to many,” the religious leaders would have been concerned about that also, yet there is no mention that they even knew that anyone else was spreading the teaching of Christ’s resurrection. The problems mentioned above are not the only difficulty with these verses in Matthew. The vocabulary in the verses is problematic. We will look at two words in the order they appear in the verses: “bodies,” and “resurrection.”
Verse 52 says that many “bodies” of the holy people arose. At first this seems unusual because the vast majority of the time it is the “people” who arise, not just the body. It was Lazarus who came out of the tomb, not Lazarus’ body.
The most unusual word in Matthew 27:53 is “resurrection.” The Greek word is egerais, and this is the only time it is used in the New Testament. Indeed, it is used only once in the Greek Old Testament, in Psalm 139:2, “You know when I sit and when I rise.” The word means “a waking up as from sleep, a rousing or rising up.” Although the word was used in reference to the raising of the dead, it was not used that way in Christian literature until the Church Father, Irenaeus.
http://www.truthortradition.com/articles/what-about-matthew-2752-and-53 (continued):
ReplyDeleteWe can conclude that if Old Testament believers were raised, they were not raised to everlasting life. It is possible, but as we have seen, unlikely due to lack of supporting evidence, that they were raised and then died again in a few weeks or months.
It is interesting that some have used the record in Matthew to try to prove that there is life after death, but nothing of the kind can be proven from this record. The “saints” were dead, not alive. There is nothing in the record that says that they were alive in any way, or that their “souls” were returned to them from heaven. It simply says that their bodies were raised. If anything, this record shows that dead people are quite dead until they are raised to life by the Lord Jesus. Even if there were people who did get up from the dead at that time, they (like Lazarus and others who were raised) later died again and are still dead, awaiting the Lord Jesus to give them everlasting life.
http://christianthinktank.com/oddrise.html says about holy people rising:
ReplyDeleteMatthew is written to the Jew (generally) so we should look there first for some clue as to what is going on...
Once we start looking around for clues in the Jewish background, a strange situation develops-the passage creates the opposite problem for us! In other words, the passage will seem to be so tightly-woven into Matthew's portrayal of the Messiah that we might have to ask why Mark and Luke didn't mention it!
First of all, in a major section of Jewish thought of the day (i.e. the rabbinical strains that later became Mishnaic Judiasm) the bodily resurrection of OT Jewish saints would occur when messiah came. They literally expected a bodily resurrection (like that in the passage under discussion) to occur at the revealing of the messiah...
Indeed, one rabbi was recorded as saying this:
"R. Jeremiah commanded, 'When you bury me, put shoes on my feet, and give me a staff in my hand, and lay me on one side; that when Messias comes I may be ready." (cited in Lightfoot, _Commentary of the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, in.loc.)
Much of such rabbinical lore had an element of truth in it; and this was no exception...the Messiah DID produce SOME resurrections of SOME the saints--but only as a first-fruits of His work...
So, in keeping with Matthew's Jewish-oriented message, it makes sense for him to record this action of the Messiah.
https://forwhatsaiththescriptures.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/saints-in-matthew-27-52-53/ says about holy people rising:
ReplyDeleteFirstly, it is important to remember not to misread these verses as some have. These saints raised from the dead were not raised from the dead when Jesus Christ died. They were raised again after Jesus Christ’s resurrection three days later. The earthquake at Jesus’ death opened these graves, but it was not until three days later that the people came forth from those graves.
While others in Bible history had been raised from the dead (the poor widow’s son—1 Kings 17:17-23; the man whose corpse revived after it was thrown on top of Elisha’s bones—2 Kings 13:21; the son of the widow of Nain—Luke 7:11-18; Lazarus—John 11:1-46; et cetera), Jesus Christ was the first to be resurrected, raised from the dead never to die again.
As far as we know, the poor widow’s son of 1 Kings chapter 17, the man who was raised again in Elisha’s tomb in 2 Kings chapter 13, the son of the widow of Nain of Luke chapter 7, and Lazarus of John chapter 11, they all were raised from the dead only to die again. They were not resurrected. Considering the similar events that happened prior in Bible history, I tend to believe that those saints died again too. While some say that (as I used to believe) those saints of Matthew chapter 27 ascended into heaven when Jesus did in Acts chapter 1, I have since reexamined my position on the subject and now I do not see any Scriptural proof of it. We will let Luke inform us as to what was seen at the ascension.
Now, think about it. If those raised again in Matthew chapter 27, were caught up into heaven in resurrected bodies in Acts chapter 1 with Jesus, they too would be “immortal.” Like Jesus, they would have physical bodies never to die again. Yet, what does Paul say? Only Jesus Christ has “immortality,” only He has a body that will never die again. Could those saints of Matthew chapter 27, thus be in resurrected bodies in heaven today? No. The best explanation is that they died again after their coming back to life, and they are waiting for resurrected bodies like all the other saints of old.
My 2 cents on the raised saints:
ReplyDeleteIs this another example of Matthew's "Drash" (a Hebrew word referring to a method of exegesis of a Biblical text)? He spoke of a prophesy in Matthew 2:22 that didn't happen (and they shall call Him a Nazarene). Is this something similar?
Otherwise, it could have happened just the way Matthew said, but the details aren't there and we can't make sense of it.
On the face of it, this event could not have happened. Many Old Testament saints rising out of their graves an appearing to witness all over Jerusalem. There's just no mention in and out (by even slightly reliable sources) of the Bible other than this.
Where were all those Saints at the Day of Pentecost? Why didn't Peter mention them in his speech to all the people? Why was the resurrection of Jesus news to them? Too many questions.
There could be other explanations though. There's a story in 2Kings 13:20, about when the body of Elisha was put in a mass grave, another man was resurrected. So perhaps when Jesus was raised, there was so much power involved that "many" of the people buried near Him was raised also. That would be many of the more recently buried saints near Him (which could have been 6 people).
After Jesus' resurrection, He wasn't constantly around. Where was He? Could He have been spending some time with these resurrected saints? Would He have given them some instructions? Such as keep this quiet? Don't join the church until later?
I'm sure there are several other scenarios that are just as "plausible". The purpose of my speculation is to show that this miracle could have happened in the way Matthew described (in a slightly different way that we view it on first reading).
Otherwise, it's just Matthew adding something that didn't happen. With my cultural glasses, I find that unacceptable. Was it normal to the Jewish Rabbis at the time in that culture? I don't know.