27:52f And tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had died were raised.  (They came out of the tombs after his resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.)

The issue to be discussed here is the historicity (or otherwise) of this account.

So-called ‘mainstream’ critical scholarship regards it as ‘legendary’.  According to Harper’s Bible Commentary, for example,

‘One wonders what the resurrected saints were doing between Good Friday and Easter. The story flatly contradicts Paul’s teaching that other resurrections will occur only at the Parousia (1 Cor 15:23)…This legend was evidently designed to stress the fact that the resurrection is essentially a corporate event and that the resurrection of Jesus is the cause of all other resurrections, since his resurrection was the victory over death. It cannot be stressed too strongly that this legend is peculiar to Matthew and that it should be ignored in any attempt to reconstruct what happened on Good Friday.’

Some of the difficulties are outlined by Wilkins in the Holman Apologetics Commentary:

‘If the tombs of many saints opened at the time of Jesus’ death on Friday and the bodies were at that time raised from the dead, why did they wait until after Jesus’ Sunday resurrection to emerge from the tombs? What did they do in the meantime? Did they grow hungry? Did they receive glorified human bodies or simply revived human bodies? If they had been dead a year or more, their bones would likely have been transferred to an ossuary box, leaving them with no grave clothes. If so, what did they do for clothing when they emerged and went into Jerusalem? And why do no historical records mention the social upheaval that would have certainly occurred if many resurrected people arrived in Jerusalem? Jesus would have been just one among many returning from the dead. Surely it would have been one of the most noteworthy events in history. Given these difficult questions, are the elements of this account best understood as legend or a literary device Matthew used to portray the significance of Jesus’ death?’

Even conservative teachers tend to express doubts.  Michael Green, for example, says,

A straightforward historical reading of these verses is hard to contemplate.  Who were these people?  Were they resurrectioned or resuscitated?  Why did they go into the holy city?  What happened to them subsequently.  Indeed, what happens to the priority of Jesus’ resurrection?  And if they appeared to many people (53), why is there no reference to this event elsewhere, either inside or outside the New Testament?  (The Message of Matthew, BST)

Boice, who accepts the historicity of the account, points out the following as some of the unanswered historical questions:

‘We do not know whether these saints had died long ago or only recently. We do not know how long they remained alive. Was this a permanent resurrection? If it was, what happened to them? Were they transported to heaven, like Elijah? Or did they die again? We do not even know whom they went into Jerusalem to see or why they went or what they said to those they saw.’

N.T. Wright (The Resurrection of the Son of God) outlines his own set of questions:

‘Is the earthquake intended to explain how the Temple veil was torn apart? Does he imply that the centurion and the others saw the tombs opening and corpses getting ready to emerge? Why does he say they only came out after Jesus’ resurrection, two days later? What were they doing in between? And what happened to them next? Matthew did not suppose, did he, that they remained alive and resumed some kind of normal life? Did he think, then, that having ‘appeared to many’, they returned to their tombs, like the ghosts in Ruddigore, and lay down again?’

Hagner (WBC) raises a similar raft of questions:-

‘For example, there is the question of the nature of the bodies of the resurrected saints. Do these saints have what may be called new-order resurrection bodies, i.e., permanent bodies not subject to decay, or are they resuscitated bodies (like that of Lazarus) that later died again? (Could they have new-order resurrection bodies before Jesus, “the first-fruits of the dead” [1 Cor 15:20], did?) Related to this is the further question about what happened to these saints after they made their appearance in Jerusalem. (Were they raptured to heaven and, if so, when? Did they remain on the earth and, if so, where?) Furthermore, why is such a spectacular event “seen by many”—surely of great apologetic significance—referred to only here in the NT and not at all outside the NT? A further question concerns the basis on which this number of saints and these particular saints, and no others, were raised from the dead (was it arbitrary or do unknown criteria come into play?).’

Hagner notes that many commentators sidestep the historical question altogether.  Those who do raise it

can be found to use terms such as “puzzling,” “strange,” “mysterious.” Stalwart commentators known for their conservatism are given to hesitance here: A. B. Bruce: “We seem here to be in the region of Christian legend” (The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. R. Nicoll [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1897] 332); A. Plummer: “a tradition with a legendary element in it” (402); W.Grundmann: “mythic-legendary” (562).

Craig Evans thinks that this account is a late gloss:

‘I do not think the tradition in Matthew 27:51b–53…has any claim to authenticity. This legendary embellishment, which may actually be a late-first- or early-second-century scribal gloss, is an attempt to justify the Easter appearances of Jesus as resurrection, in the sense that Jesus and several other saints were the “first fruits” of the general resurrection. This is, of course, exactly how Paul explains the anomaly (see 1 Cor. 15:23).’

Evans elsewhere suggests that the story might be an attempt to offer an answer to Jesus’ promise in Matthew 16:18 when he said, “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it” is cited explicitly or implicitly by any church father till after the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. 3) is sequentially awkward as how can Jesus be the first fruits if they are already raised; 4) The position that the Akhmim Gospel fragment, which Evans dates in the second century, might allude to Matthew when it says in the gospel of Peter “have preached to  them that sleep” is a stretch so that information for the gospel of Peter did not come from Matthew but from somewhere else.’

James McGrath (The A – Z of the New Testament) considers a literal reading to be fraught with problems, and so opts for a symbolic intrpretation:

‘Like the imagery in Hebrews and Revelation regarding topics like resurrection and heavenly existence, we can grasp the point even if we find the way it was made strange. Matthew presumably wanted to convey that Jesus’s death and resurrection were connected with the general resurrection of the dead, in which not only his contemporary followers but also those who lived in earlier times would participate. As so often, when we turn symbols into stories and take the details of the latter literally, the result is confusing and awkward.’

Culpepper refers to this account as ‘legend’.  He says that it should be read as a theological affirmation:

‘Jesus’ death fulfilled Scripture, overcame the power of death, and leads to the resurrection of the saints. Its language and imagery belong not to history but to the apocalyptic worldview of Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Matthew.’

Some express agnosticism on this matter.  Concerning the cluster of miracles recorded at this point in Matthew’s Gospel, Brown (The Death of the Messiah) remarks:

‘The issue of the historical reality of such signs is surely beyond our calculation.’

Writing in the NBC, France comments:

‘There is no other record of this remarkable occurrence, and Matthew does not give enough detail for us to know exactly what he thought happened. For instance, why the delay between the raising of the bodies and their appearance in Jerusalem; and what happened to them afterwards? The symbolism is fairly clear, but we do not have the resources to determine the status of the story as sober history.’  In his Tyndale commentary on Matthew, France says, ‘its character as ‘sober history’ (i.e. what a cinecamera might have recorded) can only be, in the absence of corroborative evidence, a matter of faith, not of objective demonstration. It was, in any case, a unique occurrence and is not to be judged by the canons of ‘normal’ experience.’

Leon Morris says:

‘Nobody else mentions this, and we are left to conclude that Matthew is making the point that the resurrection of Jesus brought about the resurrection of his people. Just as the rending of the temple curtain makes it clear that the way to God is open for all, so the raising of the saints shows that death has been conquered. Those so raised went into Jerusalem and appeared to many. Since there are no other records of these appearances, it appears to be impossible to say anything about them. But Matthew is surely giving expression to his conviction that Jesus is Lord over both the living and the dead.

Blomberg is similarly non-committal, saying that

‘all kinds of historical questions remain unanswered about both events.’

So also Wright (The Resurrection of the Son of God), who, at the end of his discussion of this passage, concludes:

‘It is better to remain puzzled than to settle for either a difficult argument for probable historicity or a cheap and cheerful rationalistic dismissal of the possibility. Some stories are so odd that they may just have happened. This may be one of them, but in historical terms there is no way of finding out.’

Hagner argues that the event makes little ‘historical’ sense, even though it makes good ‘theological’ sense.  He thinks it likely that a historical core of events, such as the darkness and the earthquake, have prompted a degree of ‘elaboration’ as the account has been passed down.  What we end up with is ‘a piece of theology set forth as history’.

‘By the inclusion of this material Matthew wanted to draw out the theological significance of the death (and resurrection) of Jesus. That significance is found in the establishing of the basis of the future resurrection of the saints. We may thus regard the passage as a piece of realized and historicized apocalyptic depending on OT motifs found in such passages as Isa 26:19; Dan 12:2; and especially Ezek 37:12–14…Ezek 37:12–14 is apposite: “Therefore prophesy, and say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: I am going to open your graves, and bring you up from your graves, O my people … And you shall know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves, and bring you out of your graves, O my people. I will put my spirit within you, and you shall live … ”’

In response to those who argue for a non-historical interpretations, Wilkins responds that:

‘little of anything in the events surrounding Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection make sense on the normal historical level. These are all unique events that uniformly testify to the most unique acts of God in human history—Jesus’ vicarious death on the cross and his vindicating resurrection. The darkness of the crucifixion scene, the thirty-foot-high temple curtain being torn from top to bottom, an earthquake that opens tombs, and the resurrection of OT saints are all extraordinary, supernatural testimonies and “confirmation that Jesus is who he had claimed to be and that his ministry stands vindicated before the nation” (Bock 2002, 391).’

Wilkins continues:

‘Matthew’s narration of the resurrection of the saints is congruent with the other scenes, and to contend for the historical plausibility of one is to argue for them all. Recalling the imagery of Ezekiel, who prophesied that the sovereign Lord would open graves and resurrect people to life in the valley of dry bones (Ezek 37:11-14), Matthew lets this event stand unadorned because its meaning is clear.’

Noting such questions as are raised by Green, Hagner and others, Tidball (The Message of the Cross) comments:-

‘No matter how much we wish to interrogate the text, it will yield nothing to satisfy our rationalism or our scepticism.  Using the imagery of Ezekiel, who prophesied that the Sovereign Lord would open graves and resurrect people to life in the valley of dry bones, Matthew is content to let the event stand unadorned because its symbolic meaning is clear.  The raising of these holy ones is a foretaste of the resurrection to which all believers can look forward.  Through the death of Jesus a new day has arrived, a day when death has been defeated by death and resurrection to life eternal has been made possible.’

This event points to the future more than any other.  It is the bridge to the good news of the resurrection of Jesus, as well as heralding the new age which will one day climax in the resurrection to life of all believers in Christ.  The cross of Christ was an apocalyptic event.  The future has already arrived.  Or, in R.T. France’s more measured words, “In his coming a new has dawned; nothing will ever be quite the same again.”

Gundry (Commentary on Matthew), who seems more interested in Matthew’s putative sources than in the historical value of his narrative, thinks that

‘Matthew probably means that the resurrected saints entered Jerusalem only after Jesus’ resurrection. It is unclear whether they also came out of their tombs only after Jesus’ resurrection, or came out earlier but stayed in the countryside till Jesus had risen. The doctrine that he is “the from the dead” (Col 1:18; Rev 1:5) and “the first fruits of those who are asleep” (1 Cor 15:20) favors the former view because a delayed exit from the realm of death would seem less liable to contradict that doctrine. Thus Matthew probably means that the saints stayed in their tombs for several days even though their bodies had been raised to life. Then they came out and “entered into the holy city and appeared to many.”‘

But the ‘non-historical’ view is not without its problems.  As the Apologetics Study Bible notes:

‘That they “appeared to many” indicates that Matthew’s intention in this report was historical, for the detail is irrelevant if his intention was merely symbolic.’

Osborne makes the same point, noting that Paul uses in the same expression in 1 Cor 15:6 to underscore the apologetic thrust of the event being referred (in Paul’s case, Christ’s own resurrection).

Osborne further notes that the ‘and’ at the beginning of this verse connects the raising of the saints with the other events just mentioned.  Would Matthew be likely to switch so rapidly between history and legend without at least giving his readers a hint?

Can the historicity of this account be defended?

There is, first of all, a question about the correct translation.

Many commentators balk at the idea of these saints being raised before Jesus was raised.  But this is not necessarily implied by the passage.  Carson (EBC) thinks that a full stop should be inserted after ‘broke open’, so that what follows is a parentheses in the narrative. The passage would then read something like:

‘The tombs were also opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and they came out of the tombs after his resurrection, entered the holy city, and appeared to many.’

John Wenham has also discussed the punctuation of this passage, concluding that:

‘Matthew understood the opening of the tombs to have occurred at the time of the crucifixion and the raising of the saints after the resurrection.’ (Facing Hell, p221.  Written up in an article I have not been able to see: When Were the Saints Raised? A Note on the Punctuation of Matthew 27:51–53,” JTS 32 (1981): 150–52.)

The resurrection of the ‘holy people’ is then to be linked with that of Jesus himself, with the implication that they were raised at the same time as Jesus was.  We are then to believe that the resurrection of the OT saints is as dependent on the resurrection of Christ as the resurrection of NT believers.

Grant Osborne regards Wenham’s as the best solution:

‘The best solution is provided by John Wenham, who places a period between vv. 52a and 52b–53, meaning that the earthquake and opening of the tombs belong with the death of Jesus, while the raising of the saints and their appearance in Jerusalem belongs with the resurrection. This provides a satisfactory separation between the events at Jesus’ death and at his resurrection, showing that Matthew’s purpose is to bring the death and resurrection together as a single event in salvation history. While the tombs were opened at the earthquake, the OT heroes were not raised until “after Jesus’ resurrection.”’

Were these ‘raisings’ ‘resurrections’ (like that of Jesus), or ‘resuscitations’ (like that of Lazarus)?

Most commentators regard this as an account (legendary or otherwise) of resurrection.  These holy people, rather than living for a while and then dying and resting in their graves, were resurrected in their glorified bodies, and taken up to heaven with (or after) Jesus.  Indeed, one of the gravest objections to this passage is that it seems to teach that Jesus’ resurrection was not the only resurrection, or even the first.  It is to be noted, however, that this objection would still apply even if the event was understood symbolically, rather than historically.

In support of the theory that these ‘raisings’ were resurrections, rather than resuscitations, note that the word used for ‘raised’ – egeiro – is used by Matthew in Mt 28:7 for Jesus’ resurrection.  See also Acts 10:40 and 1 Cor 15:14.

However, I think that some of the difficulty with this event comes from likening it too much to our Lord’s resurrection.  If we regard it as more similar to the raising of Lazarus, then the difficulty is eased.  We are then free to say that these holy people may have been raised before Jesus’ resurrection (just as Lazarus was), that they were raised in their mortal (not immortal) bodies, and that, some time later, they died and now rest until the general resurrection.

There are, indeed, five revivications recorded in the NT:

• The widow of Nain’s son (Lk 7:11–17)
• the daughter of Jairus (Mt 9:18–19, 23–26; Mk 5:21–24, 35–43; Lk 8:40–42, 49–56)
• Lazarus (Jn 11:1–44)
• Tabitha/Dorcas (Acts 9:36–42)
• Eutychus (Acts 20:7–12).

Murray Harris offers the following reasons why we should consider that these ‘holy people’ were not resurrected, but raised to renewed physical life:

If these saints were in fact “raised immortal” (1 Cor 15:44), Jesus could not be described as “the first to rise from the dead” (Acts 26:23) or “the firstfruits” of deceased believers (1 Cor 15:20, 23).

If these saints rose in “spiritual bodies” (cf. 1 Cor 15:44), we might have expected a reference to their ascension or translation to heaven (cf. Gen 5:24; Heb 11:40). If, on the other hand, they merely returned to earthly life, Matthew’s silence about their influence or destiny is not surprising.

“Those who belong to Christ” (presumably including these holy ones) will rise with immortality “at his coming” (1 Cor 15:23), not before.

In Matthew 27:53 the verb used to describe the appearances of these saints after they had been raised to life is emphanizō, “make visible,” not the usual verb describing the postresurrection appearances of Jesus (horaō, in the aorist passive, “appear”).

(Navigating Tough Texts, Vol II)

This interpretation does not, of course, remove all the difficulties (how long had they been dead, how were their bodies reconstituted, what were they wearing?).  But a judgment of historicity does not depend on being able to answer all the questions.

Raymond Johnson argues that this should be regarded as a ‘lesser’ (not glorified) resurrection, functioning in Matthew’s narrative as a foil and pointer to the ‘greater’ (glorified) resurrection of Jesus.

It has been suggested that the very oddness of the account should lead Christians to rejoice in it, for it subverts the idea that Christianity is merely a system of good works, and affirms that Jesus’ death and resurrection bring new life.

In conclusion, I don’t think that the various doubts and objections mentioned above count decisively against the historicity of this account.  They simply indicate that we have some unanswered (and probably unanswerable) questions about it.  Nor does it count against the historicity of these events that they have symbolic and theological significance.

See David Wenham’s discussion in Tyndale Bulletin 24 (1973), pages 42-46.

Raymond Johnson: Mathew 27:51-54 Revisited: A Narratological Re-Appropriation