Why this story matters
(commentary on Matthew 27:51-53)
(Page 3 of 6)
So what if they were raised in their old mortal bodies?
So what’s wrong with saying they were raised in mortal bodies to die again of natural causes? Well, for a start this raises some difficult questions regarding what happened to the dead saints after they had finished appearing to people in Jerusalem. If they died of natural causes, some of them would have lived on for many years.
The Church historian, Eusebius, is a primary source for information on the first three centuries of Christian development. In his acclaimed work, Ecclesiastical History, he affirms that the saints would have lived on for some time. In book four, Eusebius quotes an early apologist, named Quadratus, who testified to this:
“ Those who had been cured or rose from the dead did not just appear to have been cured or risen but were ever present, not only during the Savior’s stay on earth but also after his departure. They remained for a considerable period, so that some of them even reached our times.” (IV.3.2.)
So if they lived on for a considerable period, what were their lives like? Where did they sleep at night? Where did they get money to buy food? They may have relied on charity at first, but soon they would have had to find a way of making a living. Did they get jobs? Did some of them get married? Did any of them have children? Did they regale their children with stories about the time they were dead for hundreds of years? These questions are very inconvenient for the faithful. And they lead us back to a fundamental problem. If this really happened, and they were around for decades afterwards, why were they only mentioned once, by Matthew alone, and in only one short paragraph in the Bible?
Even Christian scholars are willing to admit this is a problem. Thomas Long, in his book Matthew, acknowledged that the problem begins with the fact that this was not mentioned in any other gospel:
“If something spectacular like this occurred why was it not mentioned in the other gospels? Indeed, one would think that the appearance of previously dead people walking through a city like Jerusalem would have appeared in the pages of history outside of Matthew’s gospel” (p.319)
Indeed. Why, for example, wouldn't Mark mention it? In Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius quoted someone named Papias, Bishop of Heirapolis, as saying of Mark’s gospel, “For he had one purpose only – to omit nothing of what he heard, and to state nothing falsely” (Ecclesiastical History III.39.15). Either Mark's gospel doesn't deserve this kind of praise, or Mark never heard of the dead saints. The latter would be virtually impossible. Remember, these were legendary holy people from Jewish history. It may well have included heroes who died hundreds or even thousands of years ago, like Abraham, Noah, or Joshua. Their presence would have constituted extremely powerful evidence of Jesus’ divinity. Some would have still been around at the time Mark's gospel was written. Yet there's no mention of them anywhere.
What's more, they're not even mentioned in the acts of the apostles, nor the writings of Paul. There's almost no chance that Peter and Paul would not have been aware of this apocalyptic event. Yet their writings are conspicuously void of any such notion. For example, in Acts, chapter 2, Peter is preaching to a large audience only a few weeks afterward. He is specifically addressing the Jews in the crowd in an attempt to convert them. But, for some inexplicable reason, he doesn't seem to think they would be impressed by the fact that their own heroes from scripture have been brought back to life and are currently living among them as witnesses to Jesus' divinity. He never mentions a word about it.
Similarly, in 1st Corinthians 15:12, Paul is preaching to a skeptical audience and says: “But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” Obviously, then, some of them were claiming that there is no such thing as resurrection from the dead. So why wouldn't Paul remind them of the many resurrections that took place at the time of Jesus' death. Why doesn't he point to these people who are still living and able to explain what it's like to be dead for hundreds of years and how it feels to be alive again? It appears he never knew anything about Matthew’s dead saints. Yet an occurrence such as this would have been legendary and known by all followers of the faith. It's not very tenable.
And furthermore, right at the time the saints are rising and appearing to people, the disciples themselves seem to be oblivious to it. We are told that Jesus appeared to them on the night of his resurrection and that, just after this, the disciples gave the news to Thomas. But Thomas, who has supposedly witnessed Jesus perform great miracles, does not believe them. And a full eight days later, he's still unconvinced (John 20:26). It’s difficult to believe that, during these eight days, when the saints were appearing to people all over Jerusalem, no one told Jesus’ own disciples. No one mentions them to Thomas, and Thomas is obviously unaware of them.
Now apologists may counter that it’s also implausible that Matthew would just make up such a story. But is it? In the brilliant work Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion, Alan F. Segal, professor of religion at Barnard College, explains that parts of Matthew’s gospel appear to be added later in order to answer criticisms of Mark’s gospel which was written earlier:
“By the time of Matthew, several further apologetic features have been added to the story. These appear to grow out of the difficulties in the Markan version of the story.” (Doubleday, 2004, p.451)
© IllustratedBibleStories.ca