I suppose that nothing should surprise me anymore concerning the quibbles the Devil can and does use to rob us of our faith. Norman Geisler addresses some of these issues as they have effected the Evangelical community in the last few years. Why certain brethren within Evangelical circles—who otherwise have been staunch defenders of the inerrancy of Scripture—would buy into the Devil's arguments, I don't know. However, I thought you would enjoy Norman's answers, and perhaps along the way it will help strengthen someone's faith. Jim Roane
The Early Fathers and the
Resurrection of the Saints in Matthew 27 Copyright
© 2013 Norman L. Geisler – All Rights Reserved
The Biblical Passage in Question
And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to
bottom. And 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. When the centurion and those
who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took
place, they were filled with awe and said, ‘Truly this was the Son of God.’
Mt. 27:51-54 ESV
The Current Challenge to Its Historicity
In his book on The Resurrection of Jesus (RJ), Mike
Licona speaks of the resurrection of the saints narrative as “a weird residual fragment” (RJ, 527)
and a “strange report” (RJ, 530,
548, 556, emphasis added in these citations). He called it “poetical,” a “legend,”
an “embellishment,” and literary “special effects” (see 306, 548, 552, and
553). He claims that Matthew is using a Greco-Roman literary genre which is a
“flexible genre” in which “it is often difficult to determine where history
ends and legend begins” (RJ, 34). Licona
also believes that other New Testament texts may be legends, such as, the mob
falling backward at Jesus claim “I am he” in John 18:4-6 (See RJ, 306, note 114)
and the presence of angels at the tomb recorded in all four Gospels (Mt.
28:2-7; Mk. 16:5-7; Lk. 24:4-7; Jn. 20:11-14; see RJ, 185-186). Licona cites some contemporary evangelical scholars
in favor of his view, such as, Craig Blomberg who denied the miracle of the
coin and the fish story in Matthew (Matt. 17:27). Blomberg also said, “All kinds of historical
questions remain unanswered about both events [the splitting of the temple
curtain and the resurrection of the saints]” (Matthew, electronic ed.,
2001 Logos Library System; the New
American Commentary [421]. Broadman
and Holman, vol. 22). He also cites W.
L. Craig, siding with a Jesus Seminary fellow Dr. Robert Miller, that Matthew
added this story to Mark’s account and did not take it literally. Craig concluded that there are “probably only
a few [contemporary] conservative scholars who would treat the story as
historical” (from Craig’s comments in Paul Copan, Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? Baker, 1998). On the contrary, in terms of the broad spectrum of orthodox
scholars down through the centuries, there are relatively “few” contemporary
scholars who deny its authenticity, and they are overshadowed by the “many” (vast
majority of) historic orthodox scholars who held to the historicity of this
Matthew 27 resurrection of the saints.
The Evidence
for Its Historicity
In spite of these contemporary
denials, many scholars have pointed out the numerous indications of historicity
in the Matthew 27:51-54 text itself, such as: (1) It occurs in a book that present itself as historical (cf. Mt
1:1,18); (2) Numerous events in this book have been confirmed as historical
(e.g., the birth, life, deeds, teachings, death, and resurrection of Christ);
(3) It is presented in the immediate context of other historical events,
namely, the death and resurrection of Christ; (4) The resurrection of these
saints is also presented as an event occurring as a result of the literal death
and resurrection of Christ (cf. Mt. 27:52-53); (5) Its lineage with the
preceding historical events is indicated by a series of conjunctions
(and…and…and, etc.); (6) It is introduced by the attention
getting “Behold” (v. 51) which focuses on it reality;
(7) It has all the same essential earmarks of the literal resurrection of
Christ, including: (a) empty tombs, (b) dead bodies coming to life, and (c)
these resurrected bodies appearing to many witnesses; (8) It lacks and
literary embellishment common to myths, being
a short, simple, and straightforward account;
(9) It contains element that are
confirmed as historical by other Gospels, such as (a) the veil of the temple being
split (Mk. 15:38; Lk. 23:45), and (b) the reaction of the Centurion (Mk. 15:39;
Lk. 23:47). If these events are
historical, then there is no reason to reject the other events, such as, the
earthquake and the resurrection of the saints.
Further, it is highly unlikely
that a resurrection story would be influenced by a Greco-Roman genre source (which
Licona embraces) since the Greeks did not believe in the resurrection of the
body (cf. Acts 17:32). In fact, bodily
resurrection was contrary to their dominant belief that deliverance from the body, not a resurrection in the body, was of the essence of salvation. Homer said death is final and resurrection does
not occur (Iliad 24.549-551). Hans-Josef Klauck declared, “There is nowhere
anything like the idea of Christian resurrection in the Greco-Roman world” (The Religious Context of Early Christianity.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000, p. 151).
Don Carson makes a interesting
observation about those who deny the historicity of this text, saying, “One
wonders why the evangelist, if he had nothing historically to go on, did not
invent a midrash [legend] with fewer problems” (Carson, “Matthew” in Expositors Bible Commentary; Matthew, Mark,
Luke, ed. Frank Gabelein. Zondervan,
1984, p. 581).
A Survey of the Great teachers of the Church on the Passage
Despite his general respect for
the early Fathers, Mike Licona refers to their statements on this passage as
“vague,” “unclear,” “ambiguous,” “problematic,” and “confusing.”
However, this is misleading, as the readers can see for themselves in the
following quotations. For even though
they differ on details, the Fathers are
clear, unambiguous, and unanimous as to the historical nature of this event. We have highlighted their important words
which affirm the literal and historical nature of the event.
The
apostolic Father Ignatius was the earliest one to cite this passage, and Licona
acknowledges that his writings “are widely accepted as authentic and are dated
ca. A.D. 100-138 and more commonly to ca. A.D. 110” (Licona, RJ, 248). He adds that these writings provide “valuable
insights for knowledge of the early second-century church…” (ibid.). If so, they are the earliest and most
authentic verification of the historicity of the resurrection of the saints in
Matthew 27 on record—one coming from a contemporary of the apostle John!
Ignatius to the Trallians
“For Says the Scripture, ‘May bodies of the saints that slept arose,’
their graves being opened. He
descended, indeed, into Hades alone, but He
arose accompanied by a multitude” (chap. Ix, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I, p. 70).
Ignatius to the Magnesians (AD 70-115)
“…[T]herefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus
Christ, our only Master—how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose
disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their
Teacher? And therefore He who they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from
the dead” [Chap. IX] (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson,
eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I
(1885). Reprinted by Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, p. 62. Emphasis added in all these citations).
Irenaeus (AD 120-200)
Irenaeus also was closely linked to the New Testament
writers. He knew Polycarp who was a
disciple of the apostle John. Irenaeus wrote: “…He [Christ] suffered who can lead those souls aloft that followed
His ascension. This event was also
an indication of the fact that when the holy hour of Christ descended [to
Hades], many souls ascended and were
seen in their bodies” (Fragments
from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus XXVIII, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I, Alexander Roberts, ibid., 572-573). This is followed (in
XXIX) by this statement: “The Gospel according to Matthew was written to the
Jews. For they had particular
stress upon the fact that Christ [should be] of the seed of David.
Matthew also, who had a still greater desire [to establish this point],
took particular pains to afford them convincing proof that Christ is the seed
of David…” (ibid., 573).
Clement
of Alexandria (AD 155-200)
Another
second century Father verified the historicity of the resurrection of the
saints in Matthew 27, writing, “‘But
those who had fallen asleep descended dead, but ascended alive.’ Further, the Gospel says, ‘that
many bodies of those that slept arose,’—plainly as having been translated to a
better state” (Alexander Roberts, ed.
Stromata, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. II, chap. VI, 491).
Tertullian
(AD 160-222).
The
Father of Latin Christianity wrote: “’And
the sun grew dark at mid-day;’ (and when did it ‘shudder exceedingly’ except at
the passion of Christ, when the earth trembled to her centre, and the veil of
the temple was rent, and the tombs burst
asunder?) ‘because these two evils hath My People done’” (Alexander
Roberts, ed. An Answer to the Jews, Chap
XIII, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, 170).
Hippolytus
(AD 170-235)
“And
again he exclaims, ‘The dead shall start
forth from the graves,’ that is, from the earthly bodies, being born again
spiritual, not carnal. For this he
says, is the Resurrection that takes
place through the gate of heaven, through which, he says, all those that do
not enter remain dead” (Alexander Roberts, Ante-Nicene
Fathers, vol. 5, The Refutation of All
Heresy, BooK V, chap. 3, p. 54).
Origen
(AD 185-254)
“’But,’
continues Celsus, ‘what great deeds did Jesus perform as being a God?...Now to
this question, although we are able to
show the striking and miraculous character of the events which befell Him,
yet from what other source can we furnish an answer than the Gospel narratives,
which state that ‘there was an earth quake, and that the rock were split asunder, and the tombs were opened, and the
veil of the temple was rent in twain from top to bottom, an the darkness
prevailed in the day-time, the sun failing to give light’” (Against Celsus, Book II, XXXIII.
Alexander Roberts, ed. Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, 444-445).
“But
if this Celsus, who, in order to find matter of accusation against Jesus and
the Christians, extracts from the Gospel even passages which are incorrectly
interpreted, but passes over in silence
the evidences of the divinity of Jesus, would listen to divine portents, let
him read the Gospel, and see that even the centurion, and they who with him kept
watch over Jesus, on seeing the earthquake, and the events that occurred,
were greatly afraid, saying, ‘This man was the Son of God’” (Ibid., XXVI, p. 446).
Cyril
of Jerusalem (c. AD 315-c. 386)
Early
Fathers in the East also verified the historicity of the Matthew test. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote: “But it is
impossible, some one will say, that the dead should rise; and yet Eliseus [Elisha]
twice raised the dead,--when he was live and also when dead…and is Christ not
risen? … But in this case both the Dead of whom we speak Himself arose, and many dead were raised without having
even touched Him. For many bodies of the Saints which slept
arose, and they came out of the graves after His Resurrection, and went into
the Holy City, (evidently
this city in which we now are,) and
appeared to many” (Catechetical Lectures
XIV, 16 in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, p, 98).
Further, “I believe that Christ was
also raised from the dead, both from the Divine Scriptures,
and from the operative power even at this day of Him who arose,--who descended into hell alone, but ascended
thence with a great company for He went
down to death, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose through Him” (ibid., XIV, 17).
Cyril
adds, “He was truly laid as Man in a tomb of rock; but rocks were rent asunder by terror because of Him. He went down into the regions beneath the
earth, thence also He might redeem the righteous. For tell me, couldst thou wish the living only to enjoy His grace,… and not wish
those who from Adam had a long while been imprisoned to have now gained their
liberty?
Gregory
of Nazianzus (c. AD 330-c. 389)
“He
[Christ] lays down His life, but He has the power to take it again; and the
veil rent, for the mysterious doors of Heaven are opened; the rocks are cleft, the dead arise. He dies but he gives life, and by His death
destroys death. He is buried, but He
rises again. He goes down to Hell, but
He brings up the souls; He ascends to Heaven, and shall come again to judge
the quick and the dead, and to put to the test such words are yours” (Schaff,
ibid., vol. VII, Sect XX, p. 309).
Jerome
(AD 342-420)
Speaking of the Matthew 27 text, he
wrote: “It is not doubtful to any what these great signs signify according to
the letter, namely, that heaven and earth and all things should bear witness to
their crucified Lord” (cited in Aquinas, Commentary on the Four Gospels, vol. I, part III: St. Matthew
(Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1841), 964.
“As Lazarus rose from the dead, so
also did many bodies of the Saints rise again to shew forth the Lord’s
resurrection; yet notwithstanding that the graves were opened, they did not
rise again before the Lord rose, that He might be the first-born of the
resurrection from the dead” (cited by Aquinas, ibid., 963).
Hilary
of Poitiers (c. AD 315-c.357)
“The graves were opened, for the bands of death were loosed. And
many bodies of the saints which slept
arose, for illuminating the darkness of death, and
shedding light upon the gloom of Hades, He
robbed the spirits of death” (cited by Aquinas, ibid., 963).
Chrysostom
(AD 347-407)
“When He [Christ]
remained on the cross they had said tauntingly, He saved others, himself he cannot save. But what He should not do for Himself, that He did and more than that for the bodies of the saints. For if
it was a great thing to raise Lazarus after four days, much more was it that
they who had long slept should not shew themselves above; this is indeed a
proof of the resurrection to come. But that it might not be thought that that
which was done was an appearance merely, the Evangelist adds, and come out of the graves after his
resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many” (cited
by Aquinas, ibid., 963-964).
St.
Augustine (AD 354-430)
The
greatest scholar at the beginning of the Middle Ages, St. Augustine, wrote: “As
if Moses’ body could not have been hid somewhere…and be raised up therefrom by
divine power at the time when Elias and he were seen with Christ: Just as at the time of Christ’s passion
many bodies of the saints arose, and after his resurrection appeared, according
to the Scriptures, to many in the holy city” (Augustine, On the Gospel of St. John, Tractate
cxxiv, 3, Philip Schaff, Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, 448).
“Matthew proceeds thus: ‘And the earth did
quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the
saints which slept arise, and come out of the graves after the resurrection,
and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.’ There is no reason to
fear that these facts, which have
been related only by Matthew, may appear to be inconsistent with the narrative
present by any one of the rest [of the Gospel writers)…. For as the said
Matthew not only tells how the centurion ‘saw the earthquake,’ but also appends
the words [in v. 54], ‘and those things
that were done’…. Although Matthew has not added any such statement, it
would still have been perfectly legitimate to suppose, that as many astonishing
things did place at that time…, the historians
were at liberty to select for narration any particular incident which they were
severally disposed to instance as the subject of the wonder. And it
would not be fair to impeach them with inconsistency, simply because one of
them may have specified one occurrence as the immediate cause of the
centurion’s amazement, while another introduces a different incident” (St.
Augustine, The Harmony of the Gospels,
Book III, chap. xxi in Schaff, ibid., vol. VI, p. 206, emphasis added).
St.
Remigius (c. 438-c. 533) “Apostle of the Franks”
“But
some one will ask, what became of those
who rose again when the Lord rose. We
must believe that they rose again to be witnesses of the Lord’s resurrection. Some have said that they died again, and were
turned to dust, as Lazarus and the rest whom the Lord raised. But we must by no means give credit to these
men’s sayings, since if they were to die again, it would be greater torment to
them, than if they had not risen again. We ought therefore to believe without hesitation
that they who rose from the dead at the Lord’s resurrection, ascended also into
heaven together with Him” (cited in Aquinas, ibid., 964).
Thomas
Aquinas (1224-1274)
As
Augustine was the greatest Christian thinker at the beginning of the Middle Ages,
Aquinas was the greatest teacher at the end.
And too he held to the
historicity of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27, as is evident
from his citations from the Fathers (with approval) in his great commentary on
the Gospels (The Golden Chain), as all
the above Aquinas references indicate, including Jerome, Hilary of Poitiers,
Chrysostom, and Remigius (see Aquinas, ibid., 963-964).
John
Calvin (1509-1564)
The
chain of great Christian teachers holding to the historicity of this text
continued into the Reformation and beyond.
John Calvin wrote: “Matt. 27.52. And the tombs were opened. This was a
particular portent in which God testified that His Son had entered death’s
prison, not to stay there shut up, but to lead all free who were there held captive…. That is the reason why He, who was soon to be
shut in a tomb opened the tombs elsewhere.
Yet we may doubt whether this opening of the tombs happened before the
resurrection, for the resurrection of
the saints which is shortly after added followed in my opinion the resurrection
of Christ. It is absurd for some
interpreters to image that they spent three days alive and breathing, hidden in
tombs. It seems likely to me that at
Christ’s death the tombs at once opened; at His resurrection some of the godly
men received breath and came out and were seen in the city. Christ is called the Firstborn from the dead (1
Cor. 15:20; Col. 1:18)…. This reasoning agrees very well, seeing that the
breaking of the tombs was the presage of new life, and the fruit itself, the
effect, appeared three days later, as Christ rising again led other companions
from the graves with Himself. And in
this sign it was shown that neither His dying nor His resurrection were private
to himself, but breathe the odour of life into all the faithful” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, trans.
A. W. Morrison. Eds. David and Thomas Torrance.
Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972, vol. 3, pp. 211-212).
Concluding
Comments
Of
course, there are some aspects of this Matthew 27 text of the saints on which
the Fathers were uncertain. For example,
there is the question as to whether the saints were resurrected before or after
Jesus was and whether it was a resuscitation to a mortal body or a permanent
resurrection to an immortal body. However, there is no reason for serious doubt
that all the Fathers surveyed accepted the historicity of this account. Their testimony is very convincing for many
reasons:
First,
the earliest confirmation as to the historical nature of the resurrection of
the saints in the Matthew 27 passage goes all the way back to Ignatius, a contemporary
of the apostle John (who died. c. AD 90).
One could not ask for an earlier verification
that the resurrection of these saints than that of Ignatius (AD 70-115). He wrote: “He who they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead”
[Chap. IX].
And in the Epistle to the Trallians he added, “For Says the Scripture, ‘May bodies of the saints that slept arose,’
their graves being opened. He
descended, indeed, into Hades alone, but He
arose accompanied by a multitude” (chap. IX, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I, p. 70).
The author who is a contemporary of the last apostle (John) is speaking
unmistakably of the saints in Matthew 27 who were literally resurrected after
Jesus was.
Second, the next testimony to the historicity of this passage is
Irenaeus who knew Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John. Other than the apostolic Fathers, Irenaeus is
a good as any witness to the earliest post-apostolic understanding of the
Matthew 27 text. And he made it clear
that “many” persons “ascended and were
seen in their bodies” (Fragments
from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus XXVIII. Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I, ibid., 572-573).
Third, there is a virtually unbroken chain of great Fathers of the
church after Irenaeus (2nd cent.) who took this passage as
historical (see above). Much of the
alleged “confusion” and “conflict” about the text is cleared up when one
understands that, while the tombs were opened at the time of the death of
Christ, nonetheless, the resurrection of these saints did not occur until “after his resurrection” (Mt. 27:53,
emphasis added)
since Jesus is the “firstfruits” (1 Cor.
15:23) of the resurrection.
Fourth, the great church Father St. Augustine stressed the
historicity of the Matthew 27 text about the resurrection of the saints,
speaking of them as “facts” and “things that were done” as recorded by
the Gospel “historians” (St.
Augustine, The Harmony of the Gospels,
Book III, chap. xxi in Schaff, ibid., vol. VI, p. 206, emphasis added).
Fifth, many of the Fathers used this passage in an apologetic
sense as evidence of the resurrection of Christ. This reveals their conviction that it was a
historical event resulting from the historical event of the resurrection of
Christ. Irenaeus was explicit on this point, declaring, “Matthew
also, who had a still greater desire [to establish this point], took particular
pains to afford them convincing proof
that Christ is the seed of David…” (Irenaeus, ibid., 573).
Some,
like Chrysostom, took it as evidence for the resurrection to come. “For
if it was a great thing to raise Lazarus after four days, much more was it that
they who had long slept should not shew themselves above; this is indeed a
proof of the resurrection to come” (cited
by Aquinas, ibid., 963-964).
Origen
took it as “evidences of the divinity of
Jesus” (Origen, ibid., Book II, chap. XXXVI. Ante-Nicene Fathers, 446). None
of these Fathers would have given it such apologetic weight had they not been
convinced of the historicity of the resurrection of these saints after Jesus’
resurrection in Matthew 27.
Sixth, even the Church Father Origen, who was the most prone to
allegorizing away literal events in the Bible, took this text to refer to a
literal historical resurrection of saints.
He wrote of the events in Matthew 27 that they are “the evidences of the divinity of
Jesus” (Origen, ibid., Book II, chap. XXXVI. Ante-Nicene Fathers, 446).
Seventh, some of the great teachers of the Church were careful to
mention that the saints rose as a result of Jesus’ resurrection which is a
further verification of the historical nature of the resurrection of the saints
in Mathew 27. Jerome wrote: “As Lazarus rose from the dead, so
also did many bodies of the Saints rise again to shew forth the Lord’s
resurrection; yet notwithstanding that the graves
were opened, they did not rise again before the Lord rose, that He might be the
first-born of the resurrection from the dead” (cited by Aquinas, ibid.,
963). John Calvin added, “Yet we may
doubt whether this opening of the tombs happened before the resurrection, for the resurrection of the saints which is
shortly after added followed in my opinion the resurrection of Christ. It is absurd for some interpreters to image
that they spent three days alive and breathing, hidden in tombs.” For “It seems likely to me that at Christ’s death the tombs at once opened;
at His resurrection some of the godly men received breath and came out and were
seen in the city. Christ is called
the Firstborn from the dead (1 Cor. 15:20; Col. 1:18” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, vol. 3, pp. 211-212).
Eighth, St. Augustine provides an answer to the false premise of
contemporary critics that there must be another references to a New Testament
event like this in order to confirm that it is historical. He wrote,
“It would not be
fair to impeach them with inconsistency, simply because one of them may have
specified one occurrence as the immediate cause of the centurion’s amazement,
while another introduces a different incident”
(St. Augustine, ibid., emphasis added).
So, contrary to the
claims of critics, the Matthew 27 account of the resurrection of the saints is
a clear and unambiguous affirmation of the historicity of the resurrection of
the saints. This is supported by a virtually unbroken line of the great
commentators of the Early Church and through the Middle Ages and into the
Reformation period (John Calvin). Not a single example was found of any Father
surveyed who believed this was a legend.
Such a belief is due to the acceptance of critical methodology, not to
either a historical-grammatical exposition of the text or to the supporting
testimony of the main orthodox teachers of the Church up to and through the
Reformation Period.
Ninth, the impetus for rejecting the story of the resurrection of
the saints in Matthew 27 is not based on good exegesis of the text or on the
early support of the Fathers but is based on fallacious premises. (1) First of all, there is an
anti-supernatural bias beneath much of contemporary scholarship. But there is no philosophical basis for the rejection
of miracles (see our Miracles and the
Modern Mind, Grand Rapids: Baker,
1992), and there is no exegetical basis for rejecting it in the text. Indeed on the same ground one could reject
the resurrection of Christ since it supernatural and is found in the same text.
(2) Further, there is also the fallacious premise of double
reference which affirms that if an event is not mentioned at least twice in the
Gospels, then its historicity is questioned.
But on this grounds many other events must be rejected as well, such as,
the story of Nicodemus (Jn. 3), the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn. 4), the
story of Zaccchaeus (Lk. 19), the resurrection of Lazarus (Jn. 11), and even the
birth of Christ in the stable and the angel chorus (Lk. 2), as well as many
other events in the Gospels. How many
times does an event have to be mentioned in a contemporary piece of literature based
on reliable witnesses in order to be true?
(3) There is another argument that seems to infect much of
contemporary New Testament scholarship on this matter. It is theorized that an event like this, if
literal, would have involved enough people and graves to have drawn significant
evidence of it in a small place like Jerusalem.
Raymond Brown alludes to this, noting that “…many interpreters balk at
the thought of many known risen dead being seen in Jerusalem—such a large scale
phenomenon should have left some traces in Jewish and/or secular history!” However, at best this is simply the
fallacious Argument from Silence. What
is more, “many” can mean only a small group, not hundreds of thousands. Further,
the story drew enough attention to make it into one of the canonical Gospels, right
along side of the resurrection of Christ and with other miraculous events. In brief, it is in a historical book; it is
said to result from the resurrection of Christ; it was cited apologetically by
the early Fathers as evidence of the resurrection of Christ and proof of the
resurrection to come. No other evidence
is needed for its authenticity.
A Denial of Inerrancy
According to the official statements on
by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI), the denial of the
historicity of the Matthew 27 resurrection of the saints is a denial of the inerrancy
of the Bible. This is clear from several
official ICBI statements.
(1) The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy
speaks against this kind of “dehistoricizing” of the Gospels, saying, “We
deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying
behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing,
or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship” (Article
XVIII).
(2) The statement add: “all the claims of the Bible must
correspond with reality, whether that reality is historical, factual or
spiritual” (Sproul, Explaining Inerrancy (EI), 43-44).
(3) ICBI framers said, “Though the Bible is indeed redemptive
history, it is also redemptive history,
and this means that the acts of salvation wrought by God actually occurred in the space-time world” (Sproul,
EI, 37).
(4) Again, “When the quest for sources produces a dehistoricizing of the Bible, a
rejection of its teaching or a rejection of the Bible’s own claims of
authorship [then] it has trespassed beyond its proper limits (Sproul, EI, 55).
Subsequently, Sproul wrote: “As the former and only President of
ICBI during its tenure and as the original framer of the Affirmations and
Denials of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, I can say categorically that Mr. Michael Licona’s views are not even remotely
compatible with the unified Statement of ICBI” (Letter, May 22, 2012,
emphasis added).
(5) Also, “We
deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on
biblical narratives which present themselves as factual” (Explaining
Hermeneutics (EH), XIII). “We deny that any event, discourse or
saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the
traditions they incorporated” (EH XIV bold added in all above
citations).
See an excellent article clearing up this matter by John Wenham titled “When
Were the Saints Raised?” Journal of
Theological Studies 32:1 (1981): 150-152.
He argues convincingly for repunctuating the Greek to read: “And the
tombs were opened. The bodies of the
sleeping saints were raised, and they went out from their tombs after the
resurrection.” While this affects the
alleged poetic flavor of the passage, it is certainly Bizzare to hold like some
that the saints were raised at Christ’s death and then sat around the opened
tombs for three days before they left.
It also contradicts 1 Corinthians 15:20 which declares that Christ is the
“firstfruits” of the resurrection and Matthew 27:53 which says they did not
come out of the tombs until “after” the resurrection of Christ.
