What does it mean that the saints came out of the tomb “after his resurrection”?

Explanation:

Matthew explains that when Jesus died on the cross, the temple curtain was torn (Matthew 27:51), the earth shook (Matthew 27:51), the tombs were opened (Matthew 27:52), and the dead were raised and came into Jerusalem after Jesus’ resurrection (Matthew 27:53). The question before us is how to understand the order of these events. In other words, what does it mean that when Jesus died, the tombs were open and the dead were raised but they did not come to Jerusalem until Jesus’ resurrection? Were the dead who had been raised waiting in their tombs until then?

We can understand Matthew’s intention by placing a period in the correct position.¹ The original manuscripts had some punctuation, though it seems not to have been used consistently. So by deciding, in translation, on the correct position of the punctuation, we can see what Matthew means. Matthew says, The temple curtain tore in two, the earth shook, and the rocks were split, and 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 (slight paraphrase of Matthew 27:51–53). Without adjusting for punctuation, it sounds like Matthew says some dead are raised when Jesus dies but they do not leave their tombs until he is resurrected. Such a reading is somewhat awkward, because it is hard to see why the dead would wait in their tombs until Jesus is raised, or, if they did rise with Jesus, why Matthew correlates their rising with Jesus’ death.² Of course, if we add punctuation, we can work out what Matthew likely intends. For Matthew likely wants us to add a period after stating that the tombs were opened. Such a move would render the passages as follows, Temple curtain tore in two, and the rocks were split, and 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).³

On this reading, we can see that Matthew has two clear ideas in mind. In the first place, he explains the theological significance of Jesus' death in that it opened the way to God and opened the tombs. Then he demonstrates the truth of this statement by reminding his readers that some dead saints were in fact raised after Jesus’ resurrection who entered Jerusalem. Thus, placing punctuation in the appropriate place can help us sort through Matthew’s intention.

Counterargument:

While it might be convenient to suggest that punctuation can resolve the confusion of Matthew 27:52–53, it seems unlikely that Matthew would mention the fact that saints were resurrected in Matthew 27. That’s because Matthew 28 is about Jesus’ resurrection, so it makes more sense to point out that the saints were raised and entered Jerusalem when explaining that Jesus rose from the dead. Unfortunately, punctuation alone cannot alleviate the awkward placement, in the middle of the narrative on the crucifixion, of the fact that some saints are raised after Jesus is raised.⁴

Response to counterargument:

In fact, there is a good case for why Matthew notes in Matthew 27:1–66 rather than Matthew 28:1–20 that some dead were raised when Jesus was raised. For one, Matthew may not want to disrupt the flow of Matthew 28:1–20 where he recalls the all-important event when the women find the empty tomb. Further, there is a positive reason for Matthew to include the resurrection of some saints at Jesus’ death, because Matthew is making the point that Jesus’ death both opened access to God (represented by the tearing of the temple in two) and conquered death (represented by the fact that the tombs were opened).⁵ In other words, Matthew includes the fact that some saints were raised when Jesus was raised as he recounts the crucifixion because it is the crucifixion that conquers death and makes resurrection possible (see argument 2).

Explanation:

After Jesus’ resurrection, some holy men of Israel were also raised, and they appeared to some in Jerusalem. The reason Matthew includes this bit of history as he recounts Jesus’ crucifixion, rather than including it with his resurrection, is that he wants to point out that Christ’s crucifixion overcomes (at least) two major problems: the problem of sin, and the problem of death. Christ’s crucifixion overcomes the problem of sin because he carries the punishment for our sin, so when he dies on the cross the way to God is opened for sinners through faith in Christ. This spiritual accomplishment is represented physically by the tearing of the curtain. Of course, what good is it for sinners to be reconciled with God, only to die at some future time and rot in the ground? Thus, Matthew explains that Christ’s crucifixion also overcomes death. When Christ dies on the cross, he takes on the punishment for sin, which is death, but because he is perfect, and God is perfectly just, death cannot hold Christ and God raises him from the dead. Thus, Christ not only opens the way to God by taking on the punishment for sin, but he conquers death, so that those who die in Christ will be raised to a new life at the resurrection of the dead.⁶

Counterargument:

The problem with the notion that Matthew 27:51–53 is purposely arranged to highlight what Jesus accomplished on the cross, is that aspects of these verses were likely not written by Matthew. We can deduce this because the term here for resurrection (ἔγερσις) is only used here in the New Testament, and the term after is not how Matthew normally designates time. Also, the text is too clumsy to be attributable to Matthew.⁷ For Matthew explains in Matthew 27:54 that the centurion and those with him who saw the earthquake and what was happening, recognized that Jesus was the Son of God. So why would Matthew say that the dead were raised when Jesus was raised (three days after the crucifixion) as this interpretation argues, and then follow this up by explaining that the centurion saw what was happening (on the day of the crucifixion)? Of course, if Matthew did not arrange the account to highlight the fact that Jesus conquered sin and death on the cross, then the above argument does not go through.

Response to counterargument:

Unfortunately, this counterargument fails. First, when a term is used only once in the New Testament, we cannot conclude from this that it was not written by the author of the book where the term is found. For we can just as easily conclude that the term was used only once by the author of the book where it was found. Second, when it comes to the term after, there is no argument to establish when Matthew uses a term often or not often. Do we say that Matthew uses a term often for a certain concept if he uses the term twice or more, three times or more? Further, even if one could establish criteria for showing that Matthew does not use after often to denote time, he does use the term this way on at least nine other occasions (Matthew 1:12; Matthew 17:1; Matthew 24:29; Matthew 25:19; Matthew 26:2; Matthew 26:32; Matthew 26:73; Matthew 27:62; Matthew 27:63) and Matthew follows this same pattern in Matthew 27:53.

Third, we might admit that Matthew 27:51–53 appears clumsy because Matthew says the dead were raised at Jesus’ resurrection but the centurion saw what was happening when Jesus was crucified, but Matthew does not say that the centurion saw the resurrection. Rather, he says that the centurion saw the earthquake and what took place. In other words, the centurion saw Jesus being nailed to the cross, the midday darkness, the earthquake, Jesus being mocked and finally dying, before concluding that Jesus was the Son of God.⁸ That some were raised at Jesus’ resurrection is a parenthetical note for Matthew’s readers, not a statement about what the centurion saw.

Possible weaknesses:

The notion that Matthew assumes the reader will make a break after the verb for to open is reasonable. Still, if this is what Matthew intended, we expect him to make this clearer by carefully explaining that the tombs being opened is not quite the same as the dead being raised. Still, given Matthew’s constraints to keep the narrative flowing, along with the theological importance of pointing out that Jesus’ death conquered death, it is not unreasonable that Matthew includes this parenthetical note.

Explanation:

There are various eras in the history of God’s dealing with the nations. There is the time before Christ, when God makes a covenant with the Israelites, and there is the time after Christ, when the penalty for sin has been paid, and God welcomes all those who place their faith in Christ. Then there is the final age, when Christ returns in glory and the dead are raised. Matthew wants his readers to understand that Jesus’ death on the cross means that we are one step closer to the final resurrection age. Matthew does this by explaining that when Jesus died on the cross the tombs were opened, and the dead were raised. Thus, Jesus’ death initiates the final stage of history before the resurrection age.¹² Yet, Matthew has a problem, which is that tradition holds that the dead were raised alongside Jesus when Jesus was raised. To solve this problem, Matthew indicates that there are two events. There is the event of the dead being raised (Matthew 27:52) that happens at the death of Jesus. And there is the event of the raised dead entering the holy city, which happens after Jesus’ resurrection (Matthew 27:53).¹³

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that the holy ones who are raised are not depicted as being raised in glory and ascending, as will be the case at the final resurrection age. Instead, these go to Jerusalem.¹⁴ This is an important detail because Matthew’s readers know that Jerusalem is the place where the prophets are stoned and is the place that will soon incur divine judgment (Matthew 23:37–39). That the dead saints appear in Jerusalem seems to be a sign, not of future hope, but of judgment.¹⁵ Thus, the dead being raised represents the era before the final resurrection, when the temple cult is left behind, and the way of salvation is open to the Gentiles.

As for the notion that Matthew distinguishes the dead being raised from their appearances into two separate events, this is possible. But if the dead do not appear until Jesus’ resurrection, it is hard to see how Matthew could know that they were raised when Jesus died on the cross.

Response to counterargument:

When Matthew explains that some dead saints were raised when Jesus died on the cross, whether he wants us to understand that the final age or the age of the Gentiles has been ushered by Jesus’ death, is not to the point. The important point is that when Jesus died on the cross, a new age of history begins, and this new age is marked by the raising of the dead. As for how Matthew could know that the dead were raised when they did not appear until they entered Jerusalem after Jesus' resurrection, we can only surmise. Maybe some of them explained that they waited in their tombs for three days until Jesus was raised before appearing in the city.

Explanation:

To understand what it means that the saints appeared in the holy city after Jesus’ resurrection, we must take our direction from Matthew. In other words, we need to determine our commitments from the text and then decide how to explain those commitments. So what does Matthew commit us to? Matthew opens Matthew 27:51 with behold, which refers to the earthquake, the rocks splitting, the tombs opening, and the raising of many saints. Thus, we are committed to the notion that when Jesus died on the cross, there was an earthquake, rocks split, tombs opened, and many saints were raised. So how do we explain the notion that Matthew says that the saints appeared in Jerusalem after Jesus’ resurrection? Are we not committed to the notion that the saints were raised when Jesus died? Resolving this apparent issue is not difficult, for Matthew commits us to two separate events. He commits us to the fact that the holy ones were raised when Jesus died, and that they did not appear to anyone until Jesus was resurrected.¹⁶ Most likely the dead were raised with new spiritual bodies so that they simply remained invisible until Jesus’ resurrection.

Counterargument:

The notion that Matthew commits us to the dead being raised when Jesus died depends on where one places punctuation in Matthew 27:51–52. Thus, it is strong to say that we are committed to the notion that the dead were raised on Good Friday, unless one can show why one placement of punctuation should be favoured over another. In other words, Matthew, like other ancients, did not use many punctuation marks when he wrote his Gospel account, so we have to infer from the context where we think, in translation, commas, question marks, and periods should be placed. When it comes to Matthew 27:51–53, a sentence could begin with behold, and a period could be placed at the end of Matthew 27:53. This is what the above view seems to hold. An equally plausible option is to place a period after the verb for to open, which is found at Matthew 27:52a (see Interpretation 1, argument 1). Such a placement would commit us to the fact that when Jesus died, the temple curtain was torn in two (Matthew 27:51), there was an earthquake (Matthew 27:51), the rocks split (Matthew 27:51), and the tombs opened (Matthew 27:52). This is enough to indicate that Jesus’ death accomplished access to God and conquers death. In what follows, Matthew explains what it means that the tombs were opened. It means that in fact some saints were raised after Jesus’ resurrection, and they appeared in the holy city.

Thus, while it is possible that the dead were raised when Jesus died, and that they did not appear to anyone until Jesus’ resurrection, the text does not commit us to this. Rather, the text commits us to the fact that at Jesus’ death, death was conquered, some saints were raised, either before or after Jesus’ resurrection, and they appeared in Jerusalem after Jesus’ resurrection.

Finally, we know that Jesus is the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18), so if these saints were raised with spiritual bodies when Jesus died on the cross, it seems as though the saints were the firstborn from the dead.

Response to counterargument:

That our commitments depend on punctuation is a fair point. Still, even if we take it that there should be a period after Matthew says the tombs were opened, we might take it that the tombs being opened is another way of saying that the dead were raised. And if this is the case, then we should take Matthew as saying that the dead were raised when Jesus died, and appeared when Jesus was resurrected. Further, it could be that the dead were raised in a manner similar to Lazarus, so that they were not raised with a spiritual body, and thus, it remains true that Jesus is the firstborn from the dead.

Response to response to counterargument:

The problem with this counterargument is that if we concede that the saints who were raised were not raised with a spiritual body, then it is all the more difficult to see why they would spend several days in their tomb after they are raised. Surely, hunger, surprise, and maybe fear would take hold causing these resurrected persons to seek companionship.

Possible weaknesses:

The problem with this view is that it is slightly awkward to suggest that the dead were raised but that they waited in their tombs for three days. If a dead person were raised one would expect that person to leave their tomb immediately. We could come up with explanations for why a person would not leave their tomb immediately if we had to, but since the punctuation leaves open the idea that the dead were not raised until Jesus was raised, there is no need to develop such solutions.

Explanation:

Matthew says that the curtain tore in two, the earth quaked, the rocks split, and some dead were raised. He then says that the dead left their tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and appeared to many in the holy city. The notion that the dead were raised on Good Friday but remained in their tombs until Easter Sunday does not make sense. A dead person who has been raised would surely walk out of their tomb the moment they realized they had been raised. Further, Matthew adds that the centurion saw the earthquake and what took place and was filled with fear. So how could the centurion see the dead being raised when Jesus was crucified if they did not appear in Jerusalem until Jesus’ resurrection?¹⁷ Thus, we have to conclude that the phrase after his resurrection was added by someone after Matthew wrote his gospel in order to uphold the tradition that some dead were resurrected after Jesus. Why they placed this awkward statement where they did is impossible to determine.¹⁸

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that it is not difficult to make sense of Matthew 27:51–53 so there is no reason to posit that after his resurrection is a later addition. For example, it might be that Matthew wants us to put a period after the verb to open (see Interpretation 1). It could also be that the saints who rose stayed in their tombs until after Jesus arose, so that Matthew is simply explaining the events as they unfolded. Maybe at the death of Jesus the power of God spilled over so that God could not help but to raise some saints who had died.¹⁹ Still, these saints respectfully waited for Jesus’ resurrection before they appeared in Jerusalem.

Possible weaknesses:

The problem with this view is that it does not wrestle with the text as it is given. As exegetes, we are tasks with interpreting Scripture, not choosing which aspects can be overlooked because we cannot see how they make sense. If after his resurrection was a known textual variant, we are free to decide whether or not it’s part of Matthew’s original gospel. But since it is not a known textual variant, we are not permitted to overlook it but must take it into account when we interpret the text.