They ask me for an explanation on this scripture:
The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.
How can we explain these verses? What are the bodies of Many saints and how did they entered the holy city and appeared to many people?
The Watchtower gives this explanation: tombs outside Jerusalem break open and corpses are thrown out of them. Passersby who see the dead bodies exposed enter “the holy city” and report what they just witnessed.
But if it the case, why Matthew is writing that the bodies were raised, that they entered in the city? Why did he not simply wrote that corpses where ejected from the tombs, and why does he give the precision that the bodies were those of many saints? We must assume that only the tombs of saints were opened after the earthquake and the others, no?
I made some research on other site, like biblehub, but I did not find a convincing answer.

 

Yes, I read this explanation. It does not take into account that Jesus did resurrections before his death. In this sense, he was not the first.
Others think like you, that Saints have been resurrected. But it may be objected that when the Bible speaks of the Saints, it is generally addressed to the disciples who lived after Christ.
Another thing, if men of the past have been resurrected for a little time, why is it not mentioned later? Or should we think they were resurrected for only a few hours?
This passage is enigmatic. Some think it's apocryphal, but it's too easy, in my opinion, if every time you do not understand something you say it's spurious.
Your parallel with the end is interesting.

 

First of all, where was Christ immediately after his death? He was dead! Dead, and conscious of nothing at all. He ceased to exist. So, it is necessary to understand the structure of the Greek sentence, as written by Matthew. “And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.” ( Mt 27:50-53 NASB )

The resurrections of Lazarus, and others was not permanent. They were temporary. They all eventually died again. The resurrection of Jesus was the only permanent resurrection. Those mentioned as being raised up, were not brought back from the dead. Not all people could afford an expensive rock “tomb”. The word in Greek can also refer to graves. When the earthquake occurred, those remains were raised up in the ground. It was only those who “saw these bodies”, “they entered the holy city and appeared to many.”

In other words, those who observed the open graves went into the city and reported what they saw. It wasn’t the “dead” who went into the city. And, even if these dead were brought back to life, they didn’t have “eternal life”. If that were true, then that would make the following scriptures lies. Christ is the first to receive everlasting life as the “firstborn from the dead”. (Rev 1:5, Col 1:18)

 

Here is where I have a problem with this account as written. It comes down to understanding the events associated with the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus.

According to the Codex Sinaiticus, Mt 27:52-53 reads: “and the sepulchers were opened, and many bodies of the saints that slept awoke; and they came out of their sepulchers after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared to many.”

After Christ cry’s out and breathes his last breath, the curtain separating the Holy from the Most Holy in the temple is split in two, top to bottom. Then, the earth shakes (earthquake), and “many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised;” Then, as written, “coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.” ( Mt 27:53 NASB ) The Greek words translated as “raised”, and “resurrection” are forms of the same word, egeiro (eg-i’-ro) raised, and egersis (eg’-er-sis) resurrection.

These two sentences appear out of sequence, according to time. If the bodies were raised with the earthquake, why would it take more than three days before they came into “the holy city”, Jerusalem. Then, it mentions the centurion and those with him, seeing these things, becomes frightened and says, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

Here are my questions about these people: If they were “saints”, who were these saints? Would that not be important information? If they “appeared to many”, who were these many people, especially the apostles! Why does it not say what they may have said about being raised from death? What was the purpose of this so called “resurrection”? Why is there absolutely no other mention of them later in the scriptures? Each witness to the execution of Jesus gives their view point as to what was important to themselves, as their accounts show. Each one is a bit different. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all mention the veil/curtain being torn in two, but only Matthew has the account of the graves/tombs being opened. (Mt 27:52; Mk 15:37-39; Lu 23:45) John has nothing recorded about the curtain/veil, earthquake, or tombs. (Joh 19:30-31)

Personally, I believe that the manuscripts of Matthew were altered to include “after His resurrection”, to cover the fact that elsewhere it mentions Christ as the “firstborn from the dead”. To me, it is suspicious, it doesn’t fit. And, “If it does not fit, You must acquit!”

Here are reasons that influence my beliefs on this matter. One of the oldest manuscripts of the Greek scriptures is the Codex Sinaiticus, which dates back to the First Century “Septuagint” manuscripts. A quotation states “the Greek text of the Septuagint (the Old Testament in the version that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians) and the Christian New Testament. No other early manuscript of the Christian Bible has been so extensively corrected.”

“A glance at the transcription will show just how common these corrections are. They are especially frequent in the Septuagint portion. They range in date from those made by the original scribes in the fourth century to ones made in the twelfth century. They range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences.”

“One important goal of the Codex Sinaiticus Project is to provide a better understanding of the text of the Codex and of the subsequent corrections to it. This will not only help us to understand this manuscript better, but will also give us insights into the way the texts of the Bible were copied, read and used.”

“By the middle of the fourth century there was wide but not complete agreement on which books should be considered authoritative for Christian communities. Codex Sinaiticus, one of the two earliest collections of such books, is essential for an understanding of the content and the arrangement of the Bible, as well as the uses made of it.”

Quotes taken from: http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/significance.aspx

Other sources: https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/manuscripts-bible
Underlining and bolding are mine, for emphasis. All in all, this is a minor issue for me and my understanding of scripture. But, it can be used for causing divisions and points to discourage belief in the Bible.

 

The more I learn about some of the ancient manuscripts, the more I wonder about the scribes who copied them. I think not only of the transcription process, but there is also the individual scribes personal background and education. What influences did their teachers/rabbi’s beliefs have on them? Think about those who taught you, or influenced your thinking, especially when you were younger and inexperienced in life. How have you changed as you’ve grown older? We also have to think about our own faults as humans, which sometimes we deny. How have YOU changed YOUR mind and thinking? Or have YOU?

Can't stay on. My laptop is heating up again and starting to squeel.
Thanks for your information and replies.

 

My first thoughts have to do with the audience. The Matthean gospel was written specifically to the Jewish hearers of the gospel, and for that reason, we can have confidence that everything is about proving how Jesus is the Messiah and Christ. (Luke, on the other hand, was written to Gentile hearers who were associating with Jewish followers of Jesus.)

Back to the point, the question starts with establishing what this would have meant to the first-century Jew listening to this being read to them in the synagogue, and how they would have tied this with the Messianic prophecies leading to Jesus of Nazareth. Knowing that may very well explain why this account is unique to Matthew, given the obvious: this would've been a MASSIVE event if it literally happened. I mean, tell me that every network in the world would turn away from covering a sudden emergence of dead people, resurrected. And it'd be the talk of the day for long after. Even Rome would have recorded such an occurrence.

Conversely, these "holy ones" were not alive and later died again— because that, too, would've been a big deal-- adding to the legends, for sure.

No, in this case, the writer of Matthew is not speaking to a literal occurrence. He is drawing the Jew's attention to the Prophets just as he has been doing throughout the account he records for the Matthean Christian community about Jesus, proving again and again why Jesus is the Messiah they have been looking for.

The closest I can show you is found in the King James Version, in Isaiah:

(KJV) Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead. — Isaiah 26:19
​

Many translations re-cast "together with my dead body" with "their dead bodies shall arise." However the King James Version would be consistent with the account in Matthew, and account for why Matthew is citing it as yet another proof text to Jesus' identity.

The writer of Matthew was very likely thinking, too, about those powerful opening words written in the scrolls of Ezekiel:

[Darby] 1The hand of Jehovah was upon me, and Jehovah carried me out in the Spirit, and set me down in the midst of a valley; and it was full of bones. 2And he caused me to pass by them round about; and behold, there were very many in the open valley; and behold, they were very dry. 3And he said unto me, Son of man, Shall these bones live? And I said, Lord Jehovah, thou knowest. 4And he said unto me, Prophesy over these bones, and say unto them, Ye dry bones, hear the word of Jehovah. 5Thus saith the Lord Jehovah unto these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live. 6And I will put sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live: and ye shall know that I [am] Jehovah.

7And I prophesied as I was commanded; and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a rustling, and the bones came together, bone to its bone. 8And I looked, and behold, sinews and flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them over; but there was no breath in them. 9And he said unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. 10And I prophesied as he had commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.

11And he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. Behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off! 12Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, O my people, and bring you into the land of Israel. 13And ye shall know that I [am] Jehovah, when I have opened your graves, and have caused you to come up out of your graves, O my people. 14And I will put my Spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I will place you in your own land: and ye shall know that I Jehovah have spoken, and have done [it], saith Jehovah.

...21And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, whither they are gone, and will gather them from every side, and bring them into their own land: 22and I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all. 23And they shall not defile themselves any more with their idols, or with their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions; and I will save them out of all their dwelling-places wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God. 24And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: and they shall walk in mine ordinances, and keep my statutes, and do them.
​

All of this would have had an impressive impact on the hearer of the Matthean gospel, I can only imagine, because of the association with the Suffering Servant of Isaiah.

I'm of the conclusion that Matthew was tying Jesus' momentous death with the fulfillment of the Dry Bones prophecy. Not in the literal sense— although the question arose during Paul's ministry, (I'll get to that shortly). The Good News was bringing those formerly of no hope to life again, renewing them— though they may die in way all men do far into an indeterminate future. This can be verified because we have the account involving Lazarus, when Mary expressed her unyielding belief that her dead brother would be raised at the Last Day— and anyone listening to the Matthean gospel would easily see that the Last Day had yet to occur, because people still died.

That brings me to the last piece in the puzzle, that I'll offer from the second epistle to Timothy.

The writer of the letter mentions Hymenaeus and Philetus as being involved in the promotion of the view that the resurrection had occurred:

[Berean Study Bible] ...Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have deviated from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already occurred, and they undermine the faith of some. —2 Timothy 2:18
​

Were these two men trying to make the account in Matthew into a literal event to try to gain believers through sensationalism? What if someone, upon believing it to be literally true later found out it was a symbolic fulfillment of a prophecy? What would happen to their faith? The apostle Paul asserts that these men "undermine the faith of some," so did some become believers and then get stumbled when some of what they'd been told turned out to be wrong, and subsequently fall away? And what would this say about Christians, resorting to false stories to gain their following. Speculation, but it fits.

I'm left to conclude, then, that Paul is of the same mind as Mary was when she told Jesus that she believed in the bodily resurrection at the Last Day.

Alright, so let's say that I might be right on things up to this point... why would the writer of Matthew describe these holy ones as being seen or appearing to many?

Tsaphah makes a good point that this may come down to the placement of a comma, similar to the conundrum of Luke 23:43 and the power a comma has in the theological direction of that passage.

I have confidence that we can do even better than that.

Keeping in mind the writer of Matthew's use of the Dry Bones prophecy for his listeners, he mentions that the tombs are opened and, reading the passage chronologically, these holy ones hung out around their tombs for the three days Jesus was dead, before going into the city to appear to many people.

The writer of Matthew is surely referencing Jesus' disciples here, following the death of Jesus. After all, what was the impact of the resurrection as the followers of Jesus— consumed with grief and all hope lost— discovered an empty tomb? And the accounts recorded afterwards seem to support this subtle tie-in on the part of the writer of Matthew. If the tombs were opened with the death of Jesus, does this not reflect out belief that death no longer has the hold on us that it once did under the Law? The price of sin is paid, opening the tombs.

Back to my point though... Restored to life, the apostles did what? They went into the city and appeared to many, did they not? The ministry of the apostles was centered at Jerusalem, to their Jewish brothers. The lost sheep of Israel, really. They followed the lead and direction of Jesus' brother, James, for as long as Jehovah would allow them; it was the apostle Paul who was commissioned to go to the Gentiles.

In any case, as life was breathed back into them, and the holy spirit worked through them right up until their martyrdom, these holy ones of God, I believe, are the ones described there in the enigmatic passage of Matthew 27:52-53 as going into the city to appear as emissaries of the resurrected Jesus... and as an appeal to prophetic fulfillment.

For what it's worth.

Submitted for your perusal and consideration,
Timothy

​

 

I should have been more specific, I admit. The Matthean gospel is written with the Jewish Christian in mind, which is why it draws heavily on the Law and the Prophets as a basis for establishing the identity of Jesus as the Messiah. At certain points, the writer even uses apocalyptic language which Jewish converts would have been familiar with much more intimately than any Gentile believer would’ve been. Space and time would fail me if I were to go through, pace by pace, to explain why I’ve come to appreciate the Matthean gospel’s “Jewishness,” if you will, but one could start with any of the Bible scholars who is familiar with this particular community’s traditions and gospel. Wikipedia being what it is, still has a wealth of sources which likewise elaborate on this. [Gospel of Matthew]

I do accept that both Matthew and Luke were written in a post-70CE world, which also accounts for certain changes to the traditions to accommodate the unrealized expectations of Jewish and Gentile believers following the devastation of Jerusalem and the razing of the Temple. Since that falls outside of the subject of Matthew 27:52-53, though, I’ll digress no further on those factors here.

I also agree that there were numerous Jews who rejected Jesus’ teachings— the leaders of God’s people being foremost among them. But the core reason had to do with the fact that the Messiah they had been looking forward to as arriving as a priest-warrior who would release Israel from bondage from their enemies was, in fact, to die. And not only die, but be put to death in the most ignominious fashion imaginable to a Jew: being hung on a tree (or stauros).

I’m not clear why you would suggest that since the Matthean community’s gospel was especially Jew-centric, that this is indicative or suggestive of naievete on the part of our Father, however. This would say to me that Paul’s letters to the specific congregations of believers fall into this same category: since they were written to a specific group, they bear no relevance to believers at-large. I’d like to think we know better than that. In the same way, while the Matthean gospel was written with the Jewish Christian in mind this does not detract from its relevance to non-Jew (Gentile) believers. As I mentioned earlier, a Gentile would not and could not appreciate the intimacy a son or daughter of Abraham would view their identity in light of their unique, covenanted relationship with Jehovah— much less the apocalyptic imagery and language likewise particular to Jewish beliefs and expectations. If I were to draw a modern-day parallel, I’d point to the unique terminology and views of the Watchtower organization and its membership— much of which is unfamiliar and foreign to non-Witnesses.

I’m not sure you can use “seems quite likely” and “for sure” in the same sentence about the same thing. No worries— I shrink in horror when I see some of the gaffs I write as I feverishly try to write to keep up with my fleeting thoughts these days. Lol

Anyhow, I see no cause for believing that the Matthean gospel was written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70CE— which I think I mentioned earlier (above).

That leaves the second assertion you make: “the copies would not have been sent to the synagogues” in a post-70CE world. Rather, you suggest, the written gospel would have been sent to “already established Christians.”

We’d have to make some assumptions for your assertion to be justified:

First, that synagogues ceased to be used by Jewish Christians after 70CE. Historically, we know that Christians gradually ceased to use the Jewish synagogue as a place to attend as part of their worship— but this seems more due to control over the Christian “torch-carrying,” for lack of a better term this early in the day for me, as the reins moved from Jewish Christians to Gentile Christians (which then evolved into the development of catholicization). Today, we continue to have Jewish synagogues— the difference is that Gentile Christians don’t use them as part of their worship life. I’d need to look into whether modern-day Jewish Christians have any affiliation with synagogues, though.

The second assumption I’m seeing you make is that the Matthean community’s gospel is written exclusively to those who were already believers and walking in the Way. In general, I can agree that the gospel would be reiterative of then-existing traditions about Jesus, his life, activities, and the early years of Jewish Christianity as the apostles sought out the “lost sheep of Israel” while there was yet time (pre-70CE). But the writer of Matthew seems to have had the not-yet-sure Jew in mind with the gospel, too, utilizing Jew-centric prophecies and apocalyptic language as part of the argument to establish Jesus’ identity as the Messiah. In a modern-day setting, this would be very similar to what the Watchtower organization considers as “interested ones” to establish their interpretations and beliefs.

I’ll stop here for now, though. Otherwise, this will become a ginormous wall of text and invite digression to related and one-off facets.

I’ll pick up, though, in a subsequent post, with your next point. Sorry, just need to get ready for the workday right now. I'll try not to lose my train-of-thought in the interim.

Submitted for your perusal and consideration,
Timothy

 

En masse? Absolutely! If this was a literal account/recounting/tradition, then its omission from both the earliest gospel manuscripts (the Markan community’s gospel) and the third among the so-called synoptic gospels (that being the one we’ve inherited from the Lukan Christians), is remarkable.

My point being that because such an event is not reported by any other writer in our Christian Greek or Gentile Scriptures, this becomes the deal-breaker for a literal situation taking place in Matthew 27.

That gives me pause when I meditate on the passage, because why, at a minimum, would Luke, a contemporary writer of the writer of Matthew, omit this event, given the powerful witness that would be taking place as dead, loved ones rose back to life, returned to their families. Celebrations, for sure. Questions, without a doubt! They’re described as the “holy ones,” or “saints” in some translations. Who would that include? Well, Abraham, for sure. Noah, absolutely! Moses? Without question! David, too!

These resurrected men and women went into the city, or, in some Christian camps, those who saw the bodies of Moses, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Daniel, and so on, went down into Jerusalem to tell others.

Either way: Just Matthew mentions it.

Nothing in John, even— that being the last and latest of the gospel accounts.

Nothing through the Acts of the Apostles, either.

Zilch.

I can’t speak for you or anyone else, but I’m pretty convinced in the face of the above and more that this is not a record of an actual, literal event— for the reasons above and because Matthew’s simply making a theological point through typology, or illustration.

This may help, Baruq, if you’re following the discussion.

Okay, so let’s back up a bit here, and get some background. After all, if this wasn’t a literal, corporeal event, then taking a closer look at the context, at what’s taking place, and what the writer wants us to know and understanding about the Messiah, should support my conclusion, right? What does the scriptural evidence show?

Now, up until this point where we’re going to begin, Jesus has been put through the wringer of spite. He was then sentenced to death by hanging, or impaled as some will term it. He’s now hanging, naked and beaten, for all who pass by to see as a warning just what happens when you call out the sins of leaders and a fast-approaching Day of Judgment as fearlessly as Jesus did throughout his ministry.

As I was writing earlier, I believe there to be sufficient evidence that what we refer to as “Matthew” was primarily for the edification of Jewish Christians of the first century. It was also instructional to interested ones within this Matthean community of believers, whether a risk-taking Jew moved to learn more about the Suffering Servant… or a Gentile who lived near a synagogue and wanted to learn more about this Jesus who had become so controversial. We know, too, that Christians, Jewish and Gentile alike, met in the homes usually of those well-off and could host groups as the movement grew in believers. More so among the Gentile and ex-patriated Jews of the Diaspora. Among the Gentiles, women, who were often in charge of the home and estate in her husband’s absence are mentioned throughout the Gentile Christian Scriptures (New Testament, by some) as hosting Christian gatherings— Timothy’s own Gentile (Roman) family offered their home, for example, if memory serves.

Alright, so if you have your Bible handy, I want to sync us all up there Matthew 27:45.

Ready?

From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. —Matthew 27:45 NIV​

Okay, so….? There were three hours of darkness. So what? An eclipse, maybe? Supernatural and divine phenomena? Maybe. It’s in all three of the synoptic gospels, so it’s pretty rock solid that it happened, I’d say. No variations between Luke and Mark.

But that three hours would have stirred some memories in the minds and hearts of the sons and daughters of Israel, memories going back to the Law. The same Law which Jesus came to fulfill, right?

Most Christians think of the Law as the “Ten Commandments” or the Deuteronomic Law or the Mosaic Law, but for a follower of Jesus in the first century— specifically a Jewish follower of Jesus, the Law was the Pentateuch, the first five books of what we refer to as the Hebrew Scriptures or “Old Testament.” All considered written by Moses himself, including the “Ten Commandments” and the various commandments governing their lives as the Chosen Nation of Jehovah God up until that Day.

Mark this spot, because we’ll be here later, and let’s go back to the Law of Moses.

Now, head over to Exodus 10:22…

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand toward the sky so that darkness will spread over Egypt--darkness that can be felt."
So Moses stretched out his hand toward the sky, and total darkness covered all Egypt for three days. No one could see anyone else or leave his place for three days. Yet all the Israelites had light in the places where they lived. —Exodus 10:21-23 NIV​

Should I believe it is pure coincidence where Jehovah God had cast the nation of Egypt into a three-day darkness so dense that it was physically oppressive across Egypt as a sign of Judgment against Egypt for its cruel domination during the time He had granted the nation of Israel into Egypt’s hand— and the three hours of darkness reported among Jewish followers of Jesus as coming over Jerusalem that day? Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, and Luke 23:44 are summed up by the writer of John, mind you, at John 19:14 with Jesus’ being overtly linked with the Passover.

These three hours were a sign from Jehovah, not some fortuitous occurrence. A sign to the nation of Israel, and Jerusalem especially, that Judgment Day was sealed. But so was deliverance from Adamic Death, which ultimately separates us from our Father and Creator.

So, we have Exodus 10 and how early Jewish Christians connected that with Jesus of Nazareth.

In this case, it’s three days of darkness compared or contrasted with three hours of darkness during which Jesus was hung up to die in view of first century Christians coming and going about their daily business— just as cautious and not wanting to get involved as the majority of people are today, keeping their head low.

Just another day in the First Century.

Hangings/impalings simply weren’t that uncommon. You just wanted to make sure you and none of your family wound up there because you were associated with elements of insurrection.

Still, three hours of darkness would’ve got their attention, though.

Some came to be believers, I’d like to believe, since all three of the synoptic gospels reports this event and a sufficient number of people would've known and remembered to establish its veracity.

Among those, I’d like to imagine, were those who stood before their fellow brothers and sisters, offering to read from their community’s gospel and choking up at this part, having been someone who happened to be walking by that day and off-handedly seeing three men impaled over yonder hill, completely oblivious to what was taking place just then, and being relieved when that darkness lifted because they were already running late somewhere— and not realizing the connection and significance until later.

Early Christians believed, did they not, that where Moses led the nation of Israel out of bondage to Egypt, Jesus led back to Life every man and woman who came to recognize Jesus as the Suffering Servant, life ebbing from him as the seconds feel like eternity to eternity and the brain is numb from pain and abuse. That even should we die before the Last Day, we are assured Life because of our faith and the testimony we give with our life as an appeal to others to return to their Creator while there is yet time.

Alright, let’s go to Amos…

"In that day," declares the Sovereign LORD, "I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight.

I will turn your religious feasts into mourning and all your singing into weeping. I will make all of you wear sackcloth and shave your heads. I will make that time like mourning for an only son and the end of it like a bitter day.” —Amos 8:9-10 NIV​

According to the writer of Matthew, and for the Jewish Christian Community, this is exactly what happened, the day Jesus was breathing his last breaths, lungs filling with fluid now as the end approached for him. In a greater fashion, did not early Jewish followers of Jesus grieve and wear sackcloth before having their mourning turned to joy when Jesus was given Life Eternal, having overcome our true bondsmaster, Death? "that time" was "like mourning for an only son," and the end of it was "like a bitter day" for them.

Imagine the devastation among them! Worst. Day. Ever, right? The Son of God put to death by the very humans Jehovah was trying to call to repentance and to save.

The apostles, they eventually went back to their former lives as fishermen, right?

But Joy found them, and now it was fast-approaching the time when the hammer of Amos fell on Jerusalem and her idolators. And arrived in 70CE.

The Jews who rejected Jesus’ message from their God would see their “religious feasts turn into mourning, singing to weeping” and wearing sackcloth.

Fulfilled, unequivocally, in 70CE, as far as I presently am convinced. What happened there in Jerusalem was some pretty bad business. Even the Romans were disturbed by what they found inside those walls following the siege. Bad. Just bad. Amos wasn’t kidding.

After that, the famine for the words of Jehovah, right? We haven't had any updates by inspiration of God since the closing of the Jewish Christian collection of gospels, epistles, and the Revelation of Jesus Christ, accepted only way late in the third century by the then-governing body of the Roman Catholic Church, narrowly winning over the Apocalypse of Peter, mind you.

No, we haven't had any additional words on where things stand for us Gentile followers of Jesus in a very long time. Two millennia, in fact! Not that there isn't a hunger for some update from Jehovah (and plenty of people willing to offer us something to satisfy it with their abundant predictions and interpretations!), of course.

For me, what I'm taking away from this whole passage is that early Jewish Christians understood the scriptural significance regarding the darkness and the three hours (3 days for Egypt as a testimony to the nation of Israel in the day of Moses that Jehovah was Sovereign God; 3 days for Jesus in the common grave of men and women under Adamic Death before being given everlasting life) in this account.

Alright, one more and then we can move on.

This time we’re going over to Joel.

Before them the earth shakes, the sky trembles, the sun and moon are darkened, and the stars no longer shine.
The LORD thunders at the head of his army; his forces are beyond number, and mighty are those who obey his command. The day of the LORD is great; it is dreadful. Who can endure it?
"Even now," declares the LORD, "return to me with all your heart, with fasting and weeping and mourning." Rend your heart and not your garments. —Joel 2:10-13 NIV​

Verse 10 is specific to our discussion, but the entire passage provides enough context to establish that this takes place at a time or period of judgment upon the sons and daughters of Abraham (Israelites, later known as Jews).

Again, keeping in mind that Jesus himself testifies that he has come not to abolish the Law (that is, the Pentateuch) but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17), I cannot think of a reason to believe that early Christians did not see the fulfillment of Joel 2:10-13 in the events surrounding and then following Jesus’ being put to death at the request of the very children of Abraham whom he had been given to surrender his life in behalf of.

I mean, is not the call still going forth today from our Creator and Father to return to him with “all [our] heart,” and with unmistakable soberness of the seriousness of the matter as we work through the rending of our heart before our Father?

Well, in the first century among the followers of Jesus, they would’ve made the connection with Joel here, I believe. The apostle Peter, for a fact, was familiar enough with Joel 2 that he made the connection through inspiration on the day of Pentecost in relation to the fulfillment of Joel 2 upon the followers of Jesus even before they became known as Christians. (Acts 2:15-22, also 31-33, 36-39)

If the writer of Matthew and every other early Jewish Christian was thinking of Joel and how the “day of Jehovah” was coming—and that it was still close at hand when the sign in the heavens appeared that day (with time for Israel yet to repent! (Joel 2:1)), based on the above-cited and referenced scriptures, why should I need to believe that Matthew 27:45, 50-51 isn’t part of the fulfillment of Joel 2, even as Pentecost was? Should I believe, instead, that the darkness is mentioned simply for its celestial significance, and not for its apocalyptic and or eschatological significances insofar as the Suffering Servant and Messiah-King are concerned?

This is why I would suggest approaching a unique passage such as found at Matthew 27:52-53 with the intent of discovering its significance theologically, in light of the Law and the Prophets. Even though the other two synoptic gospels make no reference to a post-earthquake opening of the tombs of the “holy ones,” that doesn’t dictate that the writer of Matthew wasn’t making a unique point about the grand significance of this event as far as the Matthean community of believers understood the Prophets... that being to the Dry Bones prophecy that was to be fulfilled in the latter part of days, while there remained time for a son and daughter of Abraham to repent (pre-70CE) before they would be thrown into a real darkness as tangible as that of old, during the days when Jehovah of Armies took a stand against the gods of Egypt and established His Sovereignty through divine Plagues, in this case a darkness so thick you could feel it.

In the epistles, we see this darkness described both as a "veil" before the eyes of the unbelieving Jews (Romans 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:15-16) and as a sign that the one in darkness remains under condemnation (1 Corinthians 4:3-4).

For those who came to place faith in and believe Jesus' role in the Redemption, including the writer of Matthew and the followers of Jesus, the darkness lifted, and they are restored to Life from their former state before our Father as once dried-up bones in the face of Adamic Death and its separation between the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve and their Creator and Father (Confer Ezekiel 9:4; Revelation 7:3; Revelation 9:4; Revelation 6:10-11).

For me, this is a point that only the writer of Matthew felt moved to mention through Matthew 27:52-53. With Jesus paying the Death penalty for us, the tomb of every man and woman who has died or has yet to die is opened. Out of Jesus' death comes those who are found to be "holy ones," however: those who exercise faith that Jehovah God loves us so much that He gave Jesus to pay the very penalty He had established upon all Humankind: Adamic Death, as some refer to it today.

This process of Ezekiel 37:11-14 begins with the apostles, who labored to show themselves diligent about sharing the Good News to those "sighing and groaning" and longing for God's Kingdom. I see no reason not to believe this to be true, and a reasonable accounting for the account in Matthew about tombs opening and "holy ones" going into Jerusalem— especially when it's considered in hindsight: that is, written from a post-70CE world, looking back at how the fulfillment took place.

Alright, I’ve babbled on long enough about this, and I hope some of what I wrote makes sense. I'm composing this over several sit-downs over a couple days, so I apologize for any digressions as they were unintentional. Same with my tendency to repeat the same thing over and over— my wife dutifully reminds me of that tendency but I still only manage to catch it after the fact, doh!

I’ll respond to your next point next, JoshuaStone.

Baruq, I hope I'm being helpful here.

Submitted for your perusal and consideration,
Timothy

 

I guess the first question I would ask is whether any of the above-listed fall into the category of those “holy ones” whose tombs were opened when the earthquake occurred the Day when Jehovah took this world into His Hand and shook it like a snow globe, these same “holy ones” who went into Jerusalem after Jesus was given Life for the life he gave up, that men and women might be saved. Or, whether these eight dead-again individuals were seen thrown out of their tombs and reported to certain ones in Jerusalem following the earthquake that afternoon.

In either case, I can’t see it within the context of either of these interpretations, given the beliefs of early Jewish Christians and Gentile converts to the Way, the same beliefs which continue down to our day.

Placing Matthew 27:52-53 in a prophetic sense, with the “holy ones” (by Matthew’s day) being recognized as the apostles of Jesus returning to Jerusalem and subsequently being immersed with Jehovah’s Holy Spirit taking up residence within their living temples on the day of Pentecost… it fits remarkably comfortably for me and removes any perceived difficulty with what otherwise could be seen as a really weird, out-of-context accounting. Thus my connection with the prophecy in Ezekiel involving the “dry bones.”

Alright, on to your next point…

Submitted for your perusal and consideration,
Timothy

 

I think I covered this above—but if I didn’t, please remind me.

I’m not sure whether I should draw a distinction here or not, so I’ll err on the side of caution.

First, I believe that Matthew 27:52-53, for the Matthean community, was a call-out to Ezekiel’s dry bones prophecy. The apostle Paul confirms, for me, that this could not have been a literal raising up the “holy ones” when he rejects any suggestion that the bodily resurrection Jews looked forward to (unless you were in agreement with the Sadduccees, who rejected the notion of a resurrection entirely) had taken place in his day. It also confirms that there were those who believed that this tradition really happened, literally— among this sect were Hymenaeus and Philetus. Nonsense, Paul writes in his acerbic way.

The prophecy of Ezekiel and the “dry bones” will have an everlasting fulfillment by the time which the Day of Judgment ends for humans. The “last day,” as Mary told Jesus, wherein all those who have lived by faith will enjoy everlasting Life forevermore.

But that does not preclude the early Jewish Christian view that those rending their hearts before Jehovah and sighing and groaning over all the things taking place around them to the degradation of Jehovah’s Name were enjoying a spiritual revival the likes of which we have not witnessed since. If one believes this or that foreshadows an event in the future, and accepts greater and lesser typologies, then should it be so challenging to see how Matthew 27:52-53 stands as a roadsign to the prophecy of the dry bones seen by Ezekiel as far as the undermining of the power and authority Death has over everyone who has been born (Confer 1 Corinthians 15:22, 54-56) although it has not yet been itself destroyed, only its sting.

Personally, based on where I stand in my walk as a believer, I invest little time drawing distinctions between Christians who have come to believe that when they die they (immediately) go to heaven to be with Jesus and other Christians who, for example, believe that only “anointed brothers of Jesus” will be with Jesus in this sense, whereas the “non-anointed” Christian will be able to enjoy living forever in a “paradise earth,” because in both cases, I can’t imagine anyone being restored to life and discovering that things aren’t exactly as they imagined or interpreted them to be will complain. Personally, when someone talks of their looking forward to going to heave, I’m happy that they are believer in the first place because they are placing their faith in the countless merits and blessings coming out of Jesus’ sacrifice. Their “going to heaven” isn’t really all that different from my own hope toward a paradise of Edenic proportions, filled with righteous, God-fearing men and women and children. Their heaven, as I understand it, is that paradise Earth, based on Revelation 21:2, for example.

We all suffer from a “lack of knowledge,” otherwise referred to as a “rafter” in our own eye while we obliviously go around trying to pick specks and splinters out of someone else’s eye. To me, if we can’t see something so obvious as a rafter in our own eye, then it’s something we are utterly blind to (for who can claim to have ALL of the truth, really? Jesus. That’s it, folks) and we have no clue what it is in each of our cases. Almost all of it is non-salvational in the sense that we are imperfect, and anything we know or think we understand is, by design, going to be imperfect and partials, as the apostle Paul explained in one of his letters.

Okay, on to your next question…

The debate of the resurrection? Not really. As much as I can remember, most cultures believe(d) in a post-corporeal existence after death and not a physical resurrection to this planet/world— such as was uniquely believed by the Israelites— and always in some sort of afterworld or afterlife separate from this one. Our fleshly body is a mere husk in many religions today; through the Hellenization of first the Jews and then, following the first century, Gentiles coming into the Way, it has become a view commonly accepted among the majority of Christians today. Not to mention the subtle insinuation of Gnosticism early on in Christianity as things shifted from Christianity’s Jewish origins to those adopted by the Greek or Gentile believers in subsequent decades and centuries as their orthodoxy gained power and authority over believers the world over.

And on that note, I’ll break off this post and pick up from here in a subsequent post.

Again, submitted for your perusal and consideration,
Timothy

 

Based on the writings of the apostle Paul, I would conclude that there were those who held to a bodily, physical resurrection based on what they’d heard from the Matthean gospel (our only written mention of a mass resurrection of “holy ones”), but that Paul viewed such ones as sectarian in this view, strongly recommending that such ones be avoided. Whether Hymenaeus and Philetus were “elders,” we are not told much beyond the implication that they were Gnostics from among Gentiles or Greeks coming into association with Jewish Christians and Gentile converts to the Way.

Not really much of a debate, so much as sectarianism at work with its destructive influences.

I believe I touched on this above, in an earlier follow-up. But to reiterate: Matthew 27:52-53 makes contextual sense when considered in light of early Jewish beliefs, which I believe includes the view that the “holy ones” (read: saints, in various Bible translations)were considered by believers, by the day Matthew was written down, to have been the apostles of Jesus. (Confer John 15:16, Acts 1:8; See also Matthew 19:28)

So, when did the situation arise with Hymenaeus and Philetus and Gnosticism? In Paul’s day, which places this Gnostic influence pre-70CE.

Matthew, written over a decade after 70CE (by majority opinion), wasn’t writing to support this Gnostic view, and I’d have to stand opposed to any suggestion that it is. What it does do, however is demonstrate that the account seen at verses 52-53 was not literal— which would’ve supported the Gnostic assertion of Hymenaeus and Philetus in a post-70CE world, had it been a literal event.

Not sure, again, if I’m making any sense here.

Alright, five hours is enough for this session.

I’ll respond to your final questions in a subsequent post, though.

--Timothy

 

Real quick, before it slips from mind, the Johannine gospel comes at your question about my connection in this way:

Jesus went on to say, “In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me.”

At this, some of his disciples said to one another, “What does he mean by saying, ‘In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me,’ and ‘Because I am going to the Father’?” They kept asking, “What does he mean by ‘a little while’? We don’t understand what he is saying.”

Jesus saw that they wanted to ask him about this, so he said to them, “Are you asking one another what I meant when I said, ‘In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me’? Very truly I tell you, you will weep and mourn while the world rejoices. You will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy. A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world. So with you: Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy. —John 16:16-22, NIV
​

Okay, need to get out of this chair. Feeling a tad seized up, lol

--Timothy

 

I will need 2 days at least to gulp down all these informations.