The Difficulty
Only Matthew reports that when Jesus died, “the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” This extraordinary event is found in no other Gospel, no other New Testament writing, and no extant contemporary historical source. Saints rising from their graves and walking into Jerusalem would presumably have been noticed. Did this really happen? Is Matthew writing apocalyptic symbolism? Is it a later interpolation? How do we read this?
Responses
Literal Historical Event
Summary: A real apocalyptic event accompanied Jesus’ death and resurrection — OT saints were raised as the firstfruits of the general resurrection Jesus inaugurated.
The traditional reading takes Matthew 27:51–53 at face value. The raising of the saints is the immediate theological fruit of Christ’s death: the power of death is broken, and the first wave of resurrection begins. The saints are a sign that the eschatological age has dawned. The silence of other sources doesn’t prove the event didn’t happen — ancient sources are fragmentary, and an earthquake plus dramatic tomb openings (especially if the appearances were limited to “many” rather than “all,” over a few days) wouldn’t necessarily generate widespread documentation. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110) refers to the event. Matthew, the most Jewish of the Gospels, records it because it fulfills prophecies like Ezekiel 37 and Daniel 12.
Strengths
Takes Matthew as a reliable historical source. Theologically rich — the resurrection of Jesus has immediate effects on the resurrection of the dead (cf. 1 Cor 15:20, “Christ the firstfruits”). Consistent with Matthew’s apocalyptic emphasis.
Weaknesses
The absence of corroborating sources is genuinely striking for such a dramatic event. No other Gospel mentions it, even Luke (who wrote his “orderly account”). The logistical questions are severe: how many saints? What happened to them after they appeared? Did they die again?
Further Reading
- Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians 9 — the earliest post-NT reference
- Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament (IVP Academic, 2016)
- R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT, 2007), on Matt 27:51–53
- D.A. Carson, Matthew (EBC, 2010)
Apocalyptic Symbolism / Matthean Theology
Summary: Matthew is using apocalyptic imagery to proclaim theological truth about Jesus’ death — not to record literal history of resurrected saints walking Jerusalem.
Many evangelical scholars (including Mike Licona, in a famously controversial move) and most mainstream scholars argue that Matthew is writing apocalyptic — the genre of Daniel, Revelation, and Ezekiel’s dry bones. The conventions of apocalyptic allow dramatic imagery to communicate theological truth without requiring literal historical correspondence. Matthew’s earthquake, darkness, torn veil, and rising saints are a cluster of apocalyptic signs proclaiming: “This death changes everything — heaven, earth, and the realm of the dead are shaken.” The saints’ rising symbolizes the cosmic significance of Jesus’ death: the power of death itself is broken. This reading doesn’t diminish the theological truth; it just reads the genre appropriately.
Strengths
Respects Matthew’s demonstrable use of apocalyptic conventions. Explains the silence of other sources. Theologically rich — the passage proclaims Christ’s victory over death without requiring awkward literalism. Consistent with how we read Revelation’s imagery.
Weaknesses
The transition from literal history (the earthquake, the torn veil, which were real) to apocalyptic symbolism (the rising saints) is not clearly marked in the text. Mike Licona’s embrace of this view cost him his job at Southern Evangelical Seminary in 2011, showing how controversial it remains. Raises questions about where else we draw the literal/symbolic line.
Further Reading
- Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (IVP Academic, 2010) — the book that provoked the controversy
- Michael Licona, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? (Oxford, 2016)
- N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress, 2003), pp. 632–36
- Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21–28 (Hermeneia, 2005)
Later Interpolation
Summary: Matthew 27:51b–53 may be a later scribal addition inserted to enhance the resurrection narrative; it doesn’t appear in any source Matthew clearly drew from.
A minority scholarly position (and one most Christians find uncomfortable). Some textual critics have noted that Matthew 27:52–53 is stylistically unusual, interrupts the narrative flow, and has no parallel in Mark (Matthew’s likely source). The passage has a slightly different Greek vocabulary and a “parenthetical” quality. If it were removed, the narrative would flow smoothly from the torn veil (27:51) to the centurion’s confession (27:54). Some scholars have suggested the verses were added by a pious scribe drawing on apocalyptic traditions to enhance the dramatic effect of Jesus’ death. However, there’s no manuscript evidence for the absence of these verses — all extant manuscripts include them.
Strengths
Explains the absence from other sources. Addresses the stylistic anomalies. Consistent with known scribal practices of expansion.
Weaknesses
No actual manuscript evidence supports the interpolation theory — this is speculation based on internal features alone. All our Greek manuscripts of Matthew include the passage. Cannot be proven without manuscripts lacking the verses.
Further Reading
- Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (HarperSanFrancisco, 2005) — on scribal interpolation generally
- Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (UBS, 2nd ed., 1994) — though Metzger doesn’t suggest interpolation here
- Kenneth Waters, “Matthew 27:52–53 as Apocalyptic Apostrophe: Temporal-Spatial Collapse in the Gospel of Matthew,” JBL 122 (2003): 489–515