Matthew 27:52-53, Zombies?

One of the most controversial passages relating to the resurrection story, and of all the scriptures, is Matthew 27:52-53 (KJV) “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” This passage has been referred to by many skeptics/agnostics/atheists as a proof of the unreliability of scripture as well as a strike against the resurrection narrative. One of the reasons is that Matthew’s interpolation of this into his narrative has no other attestation, independent or any other Biblical writer. The argument can be summed up as, if this happened then it would have been mentioned by others, secular or sacred. Surely a 'Walking Dead' scenario in 1st Century Israel would have caused a great stir.

I think there are at least three common interpretations of this passage, and one additional- I am proposing here. Before I get to the common ones, and my idea, let’s look at what the passage said, and more importantly-what it didn’t. Some have argued that the passage claims others arose before Christ, which it doesn’t say. Our text states the graves were opened at Jesus' death, then they arose at His resurrection. Another common thought is that the “saints” were Old Testament ones. There is nothing in the text that tends to point to that, and it seems an inference without merit. Another point that needs mentioning before I get to the explanations, the word “many” which is πολύς (polys) in the Greek is simply a reference to plural, which could have been two or more. Let’s look at the three (four) possible meanings of the passage, commonly believed.

IT DIDN’T HAPPEN

This is the most problematic and favorite one of skeptics. For proponents of inspiration/inerrant/reliability of scripture, this would be the most problematic. If we believe Matthew was inspired, then what he recorded was actually what happened, or at least a version of it. Skeptics will often use this passage as a blow against the resurrection story. Their argument goes something like, “if all these saints were walking around don’t you think someone else would have wrote about it.” As I mentioned above, the number of resurrected saints is not mentioned in Matthew’s passage, nor how many witnessed it, as the word “many” used could be as few as two or three. Who these saints are and who they appeared to are a mystery (though good reason to believe that Matthew was one!), and it is a hard passage to use in apologetics.

IT HAPPENED

Matthew recorded many things we take for granted (Bible-believers, that is), and as a historical document Matthew’s gospel is held in high regard by skeptics. The ‘Sermon on the Mount’ recorded earlier in Matthew’s account is regarded as a moral standard by Christian and non-Christian alike. It seems as if Matthew throws this passage in as a side item, a parenthetical addition to the story. In context it is interesting. We have a few things mentioned before our text in Matthew’s account; Jesus crying aloud (vs. 50), the temple veil torn (vs. 52), and darkness (vs. 45), mentioned by other Gospel writers. Jesus crying aloud, before His death, is found also in Mark 15:37 and Luke 23:46. The temple veil torn, is mentioned in Mark 15:38 and Luke 23:45. Finally, the darkness, is mentioned in Mark 15:33 and Luke 23:44. There are other things mentioned by the three synoptic gospels that are mentioned in one or two that are not mentioned in all three. This is not unusual in itself. The issue of course is this a LITERAL resurrection of other saints, no matter who or how many there were? This leads us to our third interpretation.

IT IS A METHAPHOR/APOCALYPTIC IMAGERY

There are some very highly respected apologists (e.g. Dr. William Lane Craig) that think this passage is not speaking of a literal resurrection of saints (whether they be Old Testament or not) but is a classic example of Jewish apocalyptic writing that the books of Revelations and Daniel are examples of. We know that there are various things in Revelations (as well as Daniel) not intended to be literal (multi-headed beasts and dragons, for example), but were intended to be shown as symbolic. Of course this assumes that the readers would know (and the First Century readers may have) this was meant as symbolism. This seems the easiest interpretation to defend. Yet, it may be the hardest to prove, as to it being symbolic. It seems as if in context, that is to say as it is placed within the narrative, it is speaking of something that happened-right there in Jerusalem. This leads me to my most controversial or at least the least supported position.

IT HAPPENED (OR WILL), JUST NOT HERE

The term “holy city” is used by Matthew only two times, here in our text, and in Matthew 4:5, when satan took Jesus to the pinnacle in His temptations. It seems reasonable to believe that Matthew did mean Jerusalem in Matthew 4, so we assume it is also the case here in chapter 27. There is no reason to think that it refers to anything else but Jerusalem, except maybe not the earthly/old one. In checking how often the phrase “holy city” is used, it occurs only 5 times in all of the New Testament (KJV). Clearly two, Matthew 4:5 and Revelations 11:2, seem to refer to the earthly Jerusalem while two other, Revelation 21:2 and 22:19, clearly refer to the ‘New’ Jerusalem that will be of eternal existence. I posit that Matthew may have been, under inspiration, referring to the ‘New’ Jerusalem in our text. A simple search of other English translations (besides the KJV) shows one other reference to a “holy city” in Revelations 21:10, which the KJV refers to as the “holy Jerusalem” clearly pointing to the celestial not earthly one. My only ‘strong’ scriptural support comes from a much debated passage. There is a very strange passage, 1 Peter 3:19 (KJV), which states very cryptically, “By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison.”

The context in which the passage in 1 Peter is clearly during the crucifixion (the time frame) and Jesus seemed to be speaking to Old Testament Saints, 1 Peter 3:20 (KJV) “Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” Obviously, many will point to the belief that Peter was not speaking of Christ in limbo (between the crucifixion and resurrection) preaching ‘literally’ to OT saints. No, they will say that Christ ‘preached’ thru Noah to those Peter are referring to, but that seems to not fit “the spirits in prison.” Many scholars believe prior to Christ’s resurrection there was a holding place, ‘Paradise’ or even ‘Abraham’s bosom’ (some even believe a section of ‘Hell’), in which OT saints were kept until the time Christ triumphed over death. Jesus referenced some kind of authority over death and even Hell, Revelation 1:18 (KJV) “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.” What if Matthew is actually referring to OT Saints, raised from their spirit prison; a chamber of Hell, paradise, or Abraham’s bosom, entering the ‘New’ Jerusalem. Now I know one objection would be the New Jerusalem has not yet been created. First, I’m not sure that is true, and second, if it is a still future Jerusalem, maybe Matthew is speaking prophetically of that event, too.

CONCLUSION

I think this passage causes many people difficulty. Christians find themselves trying to defend the idea that multiple resurrections were not attested to but here in Matthew. First, because it isn’t spoken of in any other writing doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Second, this is not a passage that makes the case of Christ’s resurrection valid or invalid. Finally, this passage becomes a straw man, a red herring of sorts, to deflect the truth of the resurrection. Apologists, and other Christians, struggle with this passage, as it is a very perplexing one, hard to discern the exact meaning (but I’ve tried to give at least 4). Just to be clear, and to be fully disclosed as to my position, I believe in the literal “It Happened” interpretation. I actually could defend the other positions, except the “Didn’t Happen.” I think the passage, given to us by the Holy Spirit, has purpose and value. Don’t let it be a stumbling block to your faith, nor allow it to be an issue that brings difficulty. We defend the resurrection of Christ, and have many evidences to back up our belief. This Matthew passage in chapter 27 shouldn’t be a problem to our belief in Christ’s resurrection. Hopefully this article gives you some thoughts as to how this passage could be understood. Take time to think thru these verses, as well as the whole of scripture. There are always ways to look at passages that you may not have considered before.

#resurrection #application #inspirationofscripture