The verse says that after Jesus’ resurrection, these dead arose and went into the Holy City (I presume Jerusalem) and appeared to many…the impression is that they walked around, perhaps even spoke to others, etc.
That just the point – there’s lots of presumption and ‘impressions’ of what this means.
Does ‘the holy city’ mean the earthly Jerusalem, or the heavenly Jerusalem? Does it mean that they ‘walked around’ or ‘spoke to people’?
In fact, the interpolation – 'cause that’s what this is, an interruption of the narrative by the evangelist, talking not about what happened on Good Friday, but rather, at some (unspecified!) point in time ‘after his resurrection’ – this interruption only says that they
appeared to many. If we’re talking about a mass resurrection, ‘appearance’ is a weird way to put it, isn’t it? After all, if I were to raise from my grave and go say ‘hi’ to you, you wouldn’t say I ‘appeared’, would you? Isn’t it more likely, then, that by virtue of the fact that it’s called an ‘appearance’, we’re talking about something
other than a Lazarus-style resuscitation of dead bodies?
Those who would suggest that the account is false, because such an event would have been recorded
somewhere by
someone, is making a huge assumption, and asking you to buy into it wholesale, without any kind of discussion of why it has to be interpreted in the way they’re implying.
That, I think, is where the discussion can take place. Why must we hold to that one particular interpretation (which gives rise to their objection)? Why can’t we interpret this (rather oddly-phrased) verse in other ways – ways that
don’t imply that the Scriptures are false?
it IS in Matthew, so we shouldn’t discount it as a small event or downplay it to a simple grave cracking open…the isn’t an indication in the context that this should be taken as symbolic or allegorical at all.
The problem is that this verse plops itself down in a totally different context than what it speaks about, and therefore, it really
has no context. At best, v. 52 places itself on Good Friday, but that’s just a description of what happened at the earthquake on Good Friday: tombs were opened, and bodies were raised. The rest – that is, v. 53 – happens completely outside of that context. Then, in v. 54, we’re back at Golgotha. So, I would argue that we can’t assert anything about the context of v. 53, since it’s so outside the context of its preceding and following verses!
The entire context revolves around the facts if Christ’s crucifixion, death, burial, etc.
Exactly. And v. 53
is not part of that context, but rather, simply some time “after his resurrection.”
