0

In Acts 26:23 the Apostle Paul states that the Messiah was first to rise from the dead. However, Matthew 27:52 states otherwise.

Acts 26:23 that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.

Matthew 27:52 (50-54)

And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people. When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!”

The event seems to fit better in place with chapter 28:2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

Matthew 27 is written in chronological order. That is the consistent literary style and character of the chapter. Why would the verse 52 all of a sudden jump out of time from the chronological flow of the events? The verse loses the style and character. The verse in question within Matthew has the red flags of being a gross mistranslation, an interpretation, or matter of intellectual bickering amongst a schism within those who denied the gospels and letters of Paul. Paul does not mention during the trials in Acts about this event. Acts 22:6 Paul states that the reason he is on trial is because of his hope, belief in the resurrection of the dead. If the events were known to have occurred there in Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin surely would’ve been aware.

3

1 Answer 1

2

It is an intriguing part of Matthew's gospel account. Was there one earthquake, or were there two? Did some dead corpses come to life at the time of an earthquake, or did their bodies not come to life and walk about until after a second earthquake? This quote made me think about such things:

"Jesus cried the second time with a loud voice, and yielded up the ghost. Forthwith, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; the earth did quake; the rocks rent; and the graves were opened. Three days later, after Jesus had risen, many bodies of the saints arose from the opened graves, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." The Evangel According to Matthew, John Metcalfe, p. 51, http://www.johnmetcalfepublications.co.uk/contact_us.htm

That thought would fit in with the orthodoxly Christian teaching that although several people had received resurrection from the dead in the Old Testament, they all had to die again. Not so with Christ, who is called "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18). His resurrection was utterly unique. He foretold he would raise himself on the third day (Matthew 26:61), never to die again (Hebrews 9:25-28). His resurrection secured conquest over the devil's power of death (Hebrews 2:14-15) so the grave was conquered by the risen Christ. His glorified body was already risen and out of sight at the second earthquake, on the third day. That earthquake happened with the angel coming to roll the stone away from Jesus' tomb, to show it was empty. No corpse.

This then opens up the understanding of a first earthquake immediately at Jesus' death, after the temple curtain was rent from top to bottom. It opened up some graves. But it wasn't till the third day that the great earthquake and the angel appearing at Jesus' empty tomb then fitted in with the already opened graves of some of the saints, then having the corpses in them come to life and arise to walk about Jerusalem. We are not told anything more about them.

After all, the text plainly says, "And came out of the graves after his resurrection" (vs. 53) Nor do we have doubts about Jesus' resurrection being, uniquely, that of the firstborn from the dead. Note that the word 'firstborn' speaks of priority, preeminence, and relationship. It does not mean that he was the first person to ever be raised from the dead. As previously said, the Old Testament has a few accounts of miraculous resurrections, plus Jesus himself raised a few people from the dead before he died. So, when the Apostle Paul speaks of Jesus being the first to rise from the dead in Acts 26, (see also 1 Corinthians 15:20) remember that he is addressing King Agrippa with a summary of his conversion testimony, not delving into theology details for Christians. As he said to King Agrippa, Jesus' resurrection was to proclaim light to his own people, and to the Gentiles - his resurrection uniquely served that purpose. He was the 'first' to do that, by that miraculous means.

1
  • Is this what began to cause the Arianism controversy.? Seems plausible. As though somebody had to go back and insert the “after” so it wasn’t interpreted as the saints had risen first then remained in the tombs until and after Jesus’ resurrection. Papyrus 1 does not have verses after 20. Those are “lost in time” somewhere Commented Jun 6 at 14:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.