Your take (pt. 2)

[whyiloveitaly.com]

What do y'all make of these little-mentioned verses?:

Matt. 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.



Love to all,
Bri

[primo]

I suppose it's talking about the firstfruits.

Paul said that all shall be made alive, in the following order -- 1)Christ, 2)the firstfruits, 3)they that are Christ's at His coming. And I suppose everybody else is made alive sometime after His coming.

[SeekerSA]

What do y'all make of these little-mentioned verses?:

Matt. 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

We have discussed this and there are opinions that vs. 52 and 53 are add-ins.  There are no harmonies to this event and when you exclude the verses, the gospels harmonize.  The tense IMO is the give away.  Something this significant would have been reported elsewhere if taken literally.

[whyiloveitaly.com]

In fact, if you look at verse 53, it says they came out after the resurrection. So it talks of a moment in the future with respect to that place in scripture. It really is different in tone.

The Moffatt Bible also has a different ending to Mark which Moffatt included to leave to the reader to evaluate. It includes an interesting conversation between Jesus and the disciples which you don't find in other versions, including the King James.

If anyone is interested, I will add the verses here for you to read.

Love to all,
Bri

[hopeful]

The Moffatt Bible also has a different ending to Mark which Moffatt included to leave to the reader to evaluate. It includes an interesting conversation between Jesus and the disciples which you don't find in other versions, including the King James.

If anyone is interested, I will add the verses here for you to read.

Interesting...  Yes, please do, Brian.  Thanks.   :icon_flower:

[primo]

The Moffatt Bible also has a different ending to Mark which Moffatt included to leave to the reader to evaluate. It includes an interesting conversation between Jesus and the disciples which you don't find in other versions, including the King James.

I've read Moffatt's Mark ending and I don't see how it sheds any light on the Matthew passage in question. If you do, please explain.

And I'm quite surprised that anyone can seriously dismiss any of God's Word simply by calling it an add-in. Even Moffatt, who is not shy about omiting and rearranging verses, does not dispute any of Matthew 27:50-53. If we ignore part of this verse, and part of that verse, and these verses, and those verses, where does it end? We need to be humble enough to sometimes say, I don't understand everything yet.

[jfraysse]

Hi Primo:  Ok, I don't understand everything yet.  :thumbsup:

But Brian, asked for the opinions of others! I haven't met a single person who doesn't pick and choose what this or that means in the Bible!  To me, Seeker's explanation is the most believable and personally whether I understand this verse or not matters little to me because I see no practical instruction in it.  I try not to make "majors" out of "minors". Harmonizing the gospels is more important to me.  But that just might be my chronic lack of understand talking.

Grace & Peace, John :HeartThrob:

[whyiloveitaly.com]

Primo:
I agree with you about whether or not to dismiss verses. I accept verses 50-53 as biblical, even though they're not in the other gospels. In fact, I'd like to hear more about them, since to me they seem to say that there are some who have already risen from the dead (besides Jesus)!

The thing is, nobody talks about them.

The verses in the Moffatt's are just as compelling to me, even though they are not necessary relevant to Matthew. Again, however, no one talks about them.

Moffatt's Bible says that there are two possible endings to the gospel of Mark. After Mark 16:8, one ending is:

But they gave Peter and his companions a brief account of all these injunctions. And, after that, Jesus himself sent out by means of them from east to west the sacred and imperishable message of eternal salvation.



The other ending is as found in any other translation, except for a part of the original which has been omitted between verses 14 and 15. The omitted part reads:

But they excused themselves, saying, "This age of lawlessness and unbelief lies under the sway of Satan, who will not allow what lies under the unclean spirits [or, the unclean things that lie under the control of spirits] to understand the truth and power of God; therefore," they said to Christ, "reveal your righteousness now." Christ answered them, "The term of years for Satan's power has now expired, but other terrors are at hand. I was delivered to death on behalf of sinners, that they might return to the truth and sin no more, that they might inherit that glory of righteousness which is spiritual and imperishable in heaven."


This is part of the Bible, according to Moffatt!

Love to all,
Bri

[hopeful]

Thanks, Brian!   :icon_flower:

[primo]

I try not to make "majors" out of "minors". Harmonizing the gospels is more important to me.  But that just might be my chronic lack of understand talking.

Sorry if I come across as overbearing, I don't mean to be.

You seem to be saying that we need to exclude these verses to make the gospels harmonize, is that correct? Is that because they do not appear in any other gospel? But if that's the case, we'd have to exclude big chunks of John, the first couple chapters of Luke, etc.

Something this significant would have been reported elsewhere if taken literally.

You must mean elsewhere in the new testament, because I'd say it was reported in Isaiah 26:19 - "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise." Also see Ezekiel 37:12.

But are you saying that Matthew's statement ought not be taken literally, or that it ought to be excluded? Because those are two different things. I don't agree either way, but I would agree that it points to a nonliteral or a mystical truth which we may not be able to understand at this time.

I accept verses 50-53 as biblical, even though they're not in the other gospels. In fact, I'd like to hear more about them, since to me they seem to say that there are some who have already risen from the dead (besides Jesus)!

Please don't think I'm pickin on y'all, I'm just pickin your brains to help get to the Truth!

Now, if there are in fact some who have already risen from the dead, would that affect your faith, or is it just a point of interest? I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

Have y'all ever wondered why there were two days of the firstfruits in the Law? I have. The first was during the feast of unleavened bread, and the second was 7 weeks later. Does it tie in with the resurrections, and if so, how?

[SeekerSA]

But are you saying that Matthew's statement ought not be taken literally, or that it ought to be excluded? Because those are two different things. I don't agree either way, but I would be more likely to agree that it points to a nonliteral or a mystical truth which we may not be able to understand at this time.

I looked at many apologetics and none seem to harmonize, all go off on tangents like you did with ancient prophesies, no one really seems to have a definitive answer.

For me it makes sense to discount the verses as they are not mission critical.  Ironically, if they are add-ins, they do more harm than good as it suggests that under the law righteousness was possible and contradicts a whole load of scrips that indicate otherwise.  With a UR mindset, however, it makes no difference.

I have no proof, but IMO, they are inserted verses, they just do not fit in the narrative of the rest of the text.

Blessings

[whyiloveitaly.com]

Primo:
I haven't been posting for a long time, and this is the only forum where I do post. However, I see that it's easy to get into "heated" discussions, and sometimes it seems "argumentative." Writing doesn't "hide" what we're feeling inside! Even on the web, things have a way of seeping out! And from reading your posts, I'd say you have a big heart!  I don't mind if you pick!!

The idea that some have already risen kind of ties in with the other thread I recently started here about whether death means transition or sleep. I see reason to both sides of the debate, although I hadn't started hearing about the sleep one until recently. (Jehovah's witnesses believe this as well, which for some reason makes me a bit leery.. I guess maybe because I've spoken in tongues in the past and they say it's of the devil. Some topics are just really hairy..)

The verses regarding some arising from the graves is pretty strong stuff. You'd think there'd be other accounts of that kind of thing, wouldn't you? Even if not found directly in the Bible!!

Jesus also told the thief that he would be with Him in paradise that day. (Lk 23:43) Again, some re-translate this verse to say other things; I am more convinced instead that He meant just that.

Any thoughts?

Bri

[primo]

For me it makes sense to discount the verses as they are not mission critical.  Ironically, if they are add-ins, they do more harm than good as it suggests that under the law righteousness was possible and contradicts a whole load of scrips that indicate otherwise.

So you would exclude the verses. Just wanted to make sure I understand your position.

Now, what scriptures are contradicted? I agree that righteousness was never possible BY the law, but why even bring up the law? Has not righteousness always been possible by faith - before, during, and after the old covenant/law?

For me, one of the seeming contradictions is Acts 2:29 - "Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day." If the saints rose with Christ, I would expect David to be among them, but Peter said David was still dead. Of course, Matthew said "many" of the saints rose, he didn't say all of them.

Sure is a puzzle.

I'd say you have a big heart!  I don't mind if you pick!!

The idea that some have already risen kind of ties in with the other thread I recently started here about whether death means transition or sleep.

The verses regarding some arising from the graves is pretty strong stuff. You'd think there'd be other accounts of that kind of thing, wouldn't you? Even if not found directly in the Bible!!

Jesus also told the thief that he would be with Him in paradise that day. (Lk 23:43) Again, some re-translate this verse to say other things; I am more convinced instead that He meant just that.

Thanks, I'll keep pickin!

You bring up many good points. Makes me wonder what "absent from the body and present with the Lord" means.

Are you thinking that a better understanding of this could somehow help us to preach the Gospel? It doesn't seem to matter whether we get transition or whether we get sleep as long as we're in Christ. And I'm not being critical, I'm asking because I want to present the Hope that lies within me as best I can, so I want your input on this.

What do you think paradise is? I think of it as the place where the saints go between this life and the resurrection, sort of like Lazarus in Abraham's bosom, but outside of time somehow. Is this beyond the realm of this topic? Maybe other discussions adress this?

[jfraysse]

Brother Primo:  No worries here, Bro!  I was just saying that the synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) harmonize better without these verses concerning this particular event, that is, Jesus' Death on the Cross.  But it's fine with me if you see meaning and significance in them. 

Aren't you glad you don't need my approval! 

Grace & Peace, John (seeing Dimly) :HeartThrob:

[Craig]

What do y'all make of these little-mentioned verses?:

Matt. 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

We have discussed this and there are opinions that vs. 52 and 53 are add-ins.  There are no harmonies to this event and when you exclude the verses, the gospels harmonize.  The tense IMO is the give away.  Something this significant would have been reported elsewhere if taken literally.

Absolutely there is harmony. It was talking about the dead being risen in Christ. That is why there is nobody in death and Shoel. When we are raised from the dead, we are raised in Christ.

The harmony is found in the next chapter. The even of verse 51-53 happened in chapter 28.

Romans 6:3-4
Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Romans 12:5
So in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.

1 Corinthians 12:12,13, 27
The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

[whyiloveitaly.com]

Primo:
What you say is true, what difference does it make how we get there? (It's just that when I think about going to be with Him I am filled with joy; when I think about waiting for some indefinite amount of time, I am sad.)


An interesting comment about the Law: in the Paraphrased Living Bible it reads (Rom. 3:20- His laws serve only to make us see that we are sinners!)


To me, paradise is anywhere where GOD is. Present with the Lord!

2 Cor. 5:6  Now we look forward with confidence to our heavenly bodies, realizing that every moment we spend in these earthly bodies is time spent away from our eternal home in heaven with Jesus.
7  We know these things are true by believing, not by seeing.
8 And we are not afraid, but are quite content to die, for then we will be at home with the Lord.


Bri

[SeekerSA]

So you would exclude the verses. Just wanted to make sure I understand your position.

Now, what scriptures are contradicted? I agree that righteousness was never possible BY the law, but why even bring up the law? Has not righteousness always been possible by faith - before, during, and after the old covenant/law?

Like I said, I googled the verses and looked at a whole lot of apologetics, none of them, the apologetic explanations, harmonize.  Many theories.

The theory I have is that this ties into the descending into Hades to preach to the captives yet we know the captives were in essence the disobedient and if there were folk that were resurrected from the dead, it sure would have been folk recently dead or ones that were known.

As best we can only speculate the meaning:

Mat 27:50  And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.
Mat 27:51  Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split,

Mat 27:54  So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God!
Mat 27:55  And many women who followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to Him, were there looking on from afar,

I have omitted the two verses watch now how this harmonizes with the other accounts:

Mar 15:34  And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? (which being translated is, My God, My God, why did You forsake Me?)
Mar 15:35  And hearing, some of those standing by said, Behold, he calls Elijah.
Mar 15:36  And one ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. But they said, Let alone, let us see if Elijah comes to take him down.
Mar 15:37  And letting out a loud voice, Jesus expired.
Mar 15:38  And the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.
Mar 15:39  And when the centurion, who stood across from him, saw that He cried out so, and expired, he said, Truly this man was Son of God.
Mar 15:40  And also women were watching from a distance, among whom also was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joses, and Salome,

Luk 23:44  And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.
Luk 23:45  And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in the middle.
Luk 23:46  And crying with a loud voice, Jesus said, Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit. And when He had said this, He breathed out the spirit.
Luk 23:47  And when the centurion saw what had been done, he glorified God, saying, Truly this Man was righteous.
Luk 23:48  And all the crowd arriving together at this sight, beholding the things happening, struck their breasts and returned.
Luk 23:49  And all those known to Him stood at a distance; and the women, those accompanying Him from Galilee, were seeing these things.

Joh 19:30  Then when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, It is finished! And He bowed His head and gave up the spirit.
Joh 19:31  Then the Jews, because it was Preparation, begged Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away, so that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the sabbath. For that sabbath was a high day.
Joh 19:32  Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who was crucified with Him.
Joh 19:33  But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs.
Joh 19:34  But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a lance, and instantly there came out blood and water.
Joh 19:35  And he who saw bore record, and his record is true. And he knows that he speaks true, so that you might believe.
Joh 19:36  For these things were done so that the Scripture might be fulfilled, "Not a bone of Him shall be broken."
Joh 19:37  And again another Scripture says, "They shall look upon Him whom they pierced."


Mat 27:52  and the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep arose,
Mat 27:53  and coming out of the tomb after His resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Who were the saints?  How many were there? What was the holy city, existing Jerusalem or New Jerusalem?

The text is too ambiguous and does not stand on its own merit taken literally.  Taken symbolically, they could be anywhere else and have meaning.

Blessings

[Craig]

The text is too ambiguous and does not stand on its own merit taken literally.  Taken symbolically, they could be anywhere else and have meaning.

Taken symbolically, is the way to read this. If taken symbolically, it happened in Christ 2000 years ago and has not ceased to happen.