Matthew 27: 52-53

[United]

Can anyone tell me where else in the bible is this same subject matter:

52
tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised.
53
***And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many. ***

 

[NotWorthy]

It’s not in any of the other Synoptic Gospels, if that’s what you are asking. **I think **Matthew, who is focused on proving so many of the Old Testament prophecies, talks of this to show that Ezekiel’s vision is being realized. Ezekiel had a vision of many bones coming up from the land and becoming human. This is during the time that Israel is restored.

This is just my thoughts, however.

Here’s what I got from CatholicCulture.Com

St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was eaten by the beasts in Rome c 107 A.D., says in his Letter to Magnesia 9 that these who rose were or included the Old Testament prophets.

 

[United]

Can anyone tell me where else in the bible is this same subject matter:

52
tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised.
53
***And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many. ***

Does this reference Matthew 27 52-53 (John 5: 25)

 Do not be amazed at this, because the hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs will hear his voice

and will come out, those who have done good deeds to the resurrection of life, but those who have done wicked deeds to the resurrection of condemnation.

Or does it me when we die we are asleep or is Jesus talking about the body and not the soul or - would like to hear your opinion - thanks

 

[NotWorthy]

Does this reference Matthew 27 52-53 (John 5: 25)

 Do not be amazed at this, because the hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs will hear his voice

and will come out, those who have done good deeds to the resurrection of life, but those who have done wicked deeds to the resurrection of condemnation.

Or does it me when we die we are asleep or is Jesus talking about the body and not the soul or - would like to hear your opinion - thanks

Interesting point! I cannot recall coming upon this verse before! I’ll look into some commentary to see what they say.

BTW, the verse is John 5:28 & 29 that you reference, not 25.

 

[Garyjohn2]

I always thought it was symbolic. People living in darkness, in sin, in their tombs, came to life. Maybe I am too quick to attach symbolic meaning when I don’t understand something though.

 

[crazzeto]

I always thought it was symbolic. People living in darkness, in sin, in their tombs, came to life. Maybe I am too quick to attach symbolic meaning when I don’t understand something though.

You can’t get a spiritual (symbolic) meaning with out first assertaining the literal one. In this particular case, I’m not sure why one would empisise the spiritual over the literal here.

 

[Nita]

Here’s the Haydock Bible commentary ( haydock1859.tripod.com ) on John 5:25.
Ver. 25. The hour cometh … when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God. Though some understand this of the rising of Lazarus; others of those that rose with Christ at his resurrection: yet by these words, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, seems rather to be signified the general resurrection at the end of the world; and though it be said, that now is the hour, this may be spoken of the last age of the world; and, as St. John says, (1 John ii. 18.) children, it is the last hour. In fine, some interpreters understand these words of a spiritual resurrection from sin, which Christ came to bring to the world. (Witham)

 

[Garyjohn2]

You can’t get a spiritual (symbolic) meaning with out first assertaining the literal one. In this particular case, I’m not sure why one would empisise the spiritual over the literal here.

Sometimes bible verses can have only a spiritual/symbolic meaning…and ascribing a literal meaning can be inappropriate (like some sections of the book of revalation).

I’m not saying that definately applies to this verse, only that it is possible to have a spiritual meaning that is more important than any literal one.

 

[crazzeto]

Sometimes bible verses can have only a spiritual/symbolic meaning…and ascribing a literal meaning can be inappropriate (like some sections of the book of revalation).

I’m not saying that definately applies to this verse, only that it is possible to have a spiritual meaning that is more important than any literal one.

Gary,

I can understand why you would feel this way, but do you have a Catechism of the Catholic Church Handy?

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

1. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85

1. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

If you do some digging and read into the document supported the underlined, you’ll see a more definitive declaration that not only are all spiritual senses based upon the literal, but more over it’s impossible to correctly identify the spiritual sense with out first identifying the literal sense.

 

[Benadam]

This all seem to be things that happen at the moment Jesus died.

*51 And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent. And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, *

then this

*53 And coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many. *

Does it mean that the bodies arose at the moment Jesus died but came out of the tombs after the resurrection? Or were people seen rising from their graves starting at the moment Jesus died and this continued after the resurrection?

 

[NHInsider]

Gary,

I can understand why you would feel this way, but do you have a Catechism of the Catholic Church Handy?

If you do some digging and read into the document supported the underlined, you’ll see a more definitive declaration that not only are all spiritual senses based upon the literal, but more over it’s impossible to correctly identify the spiritual sense with out first identifying the literal sense.

Caveat: “literal” in the sense that the Church uses it here is not the same as the way we use it in everyday speech. The “literal” meaning depends on understanding the context, setting and especially the genre of the text. This is what is meant by “following the rules of sound interpretation” in paragraph 116 as you quoted it - see also paragraph 110

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”

For example, if I say “my beloved’s eyes are deep pools of molten silver” you will probably assume that I am writing bad poetry - you understand that I am speaking in metaphor, that the “literal” meaning in context is not that my beloved has molten metal eyes. Unless, of course, the genre is a comic book or a superhero movie, in which case it is possible that the literal meaning might include actual molten metal eyeballs. . . . Similarly, the description in the Song of Solomon of the beloved’s neck as a “tower” and her hair as “a flock of goats” does not mean that she had a strangely deformed body, despite the fact that the Song is part of the Bible and therefore true.

So too, we need to recognize that the genre, setting and context of the Book of Revelation means that many of the “literal” meanings are metaphoric or symbolic.

 

[Garyjohn2]

Caveat: “literal” in the sense that the Church uses it here is not the same as the way we use it in everyday speech. The “literal” meaning depends on understanding the context, setting and especially the genre of the text. This is what is meant by “following the rules of sound interpretation” in paragraph 116 as you quoted it - see also paragraph 110

Thanks! That clears things up for me a bit.

 

[crazzeto]

Caveat: “literal” in the sense that the Church uses it here is not the same as the way we use it in everyday speech. The “literal” meaning depends on understanding the context, setting and especially the genre of the text. This is what is meant by “following the rules of sound interpretation” in paragraph 116 as you quoted it - see also paragraph 110

Exactly, in context… Which means while we should always be understanding that some imagry is symbolic (though as a symbolic image, it refers to something real) at the same time we should also guard against over spiritualizing which is a common problem today. It’s not all spiritual, or metaphorical… A lot of this really did happen, a lot of it is both physical and spiritual.

In context of the passage referred to, certainly I see the spiritual aspect… But I don’t see it to the extent that it was purely spiritual. And again, nothing in the bible can be purely spiritual, it has to refer to something real, something relevant.