Written and collected by Zia H Shah MD, Chief Editor of the Muslim Times

The Resurrection of the Saints in Matthew 27:51–53 – A Comprehensive Analysis

Introduction

One of the most mysterious and dramatic passages in the New Testament occurs in Matthew 27:51–53. In Matthew’s account of Jesus’ crucifixion and death, he describes a series of extraordinary events: an earthquake, the tearing of the temple curtain, and the resurrection of certain holy people (“saints”) from their tombs. The text reads:

“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.” (Matt. 27:51b–53, ESV)​normangeisler.com

According to Matthew, at the moment Jesus dies (and especially after Jesus’ own resurrection on Sunday), many previously-deceased holy people were raised to life and appeared to others in Jerusalem. This startling claim – essentially that a mini-resurrection of the dead accompanied Jesus’ death and resurrection – is unique to Matthew’s Gospel. No other Gospel or New Testament writer directly mentions this event, making it a subject of much curiosity and debate.

What are we to make of this story? Is it a literal historical event, a theological symbol, or something else? To explore the question, this essay will examine the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27 from multiple perspectives. We will analyze it through a scientific/historical lens (considering historical plausibility, possible natural explanations, and the account’s reliability), a philosophical lens (metaphysical implications of resurrection and frameworks for understanding miracles), and a theological lens (how different Christian traditions – Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox – interpret the passage and its doctrinal significance). Along the way, we will engage scholarly viewpoints (from experts like Dale C. Allison Jr., Michael R. Licona, and others), representing both affirming and skeptical perspectives on the passage’s historicity. Our goal is a balanced, academically grounded analysis that remains accessible to a general reader.

Scientific and Historical Perspective

Historical Plausibility and Sources

From a historian’s perspective, the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27 presents an extraordinary claim with very limited documentation. Matthew is the sole ancient source that explicitly reports this event – none of the other Gospels (Mark, Luke, or John) mention it, nor do any secular historians of that era. Even early Christian writings outside the New Testament (like the Book of Acts or the epistles) are silent about a mass resurrection of the dead in Jerusalem following Jesus’ death. This lack of corroboration naturally raises questions about the event’s historical plausibility. Historian and biblical scholar William Lane Craig notes that Matthew likely added this story to the Passion narrative and that “probably only a few conservative scholars” treat it as a literal historical report​normangeisler.com. In other words, even among scholars who are Christian believers, there is a recognition that this account is unusual and not widely attested.

Modern critical historiography tends to be cautious about accepting miraculous reports. Contemporary scholars have often regarded Matthew’s story as a theological or symbolic addition rather than a straightforward historical fact. In fact, one survey of recent scholarship observes that “Many NT scholars, likely constituting a majority of the guild, hold that, despite its potential theological value, the text should not be regarded as historical but merely as poetic symbolism or apocalyptic imagery.”​etsjets.org. In this view, Matthew 27:51–53 is seen as an example of biblical apocalyptic language – a dramatic representation of spiritual truth (Jesus’ death conquers death itself) using symbolic events (opened tombs and risen saints) rather than a journalistic description of events. The unique and spectacular nature of the claim, combined with the lack of multiple attestation, leads many historians to classify it as a legend or theological embellishment rather than a literal occurrence.

Notably, Dr. Dale C. Allison Jr., a prominent New Testament scholar, explicitly uses the term “legend” in reference to this passage. Allison wrote an in-depth study titled “The Scriptural Background of a Matthean Legend: Ezekiel 37, Zechariah 14, and Matthew 27”, indicating that he considers the story a later Matthean legend possibly inspired by Old Testament imagery. Similarly, Dr. Michael R. Licona, an evangelical scholar, has sparked debate by suggesting that Matthew’s description of the raised saints might be a literary device rather than a literal report. In his extensive study of Jesus’ resurrection, Licona refers to this pericope as “a weird residual fragment” and “a strange report”​normangeisler.com. He posits that Matthew may be using a Greco-Roman literary genre of biography in which historians sometimes employed symbolic elements or “special effects” to emphasize the significance of great persons or events ​normangeisler.com. Licona notes the episode could be “poetical,” perhaps even “legend” or “embellishment,” serving as a theological commentary on Jesus’ death rather than an event meant to be taken literally in all its details ​normangeisler.com.

The notion of a non-literal interpretation from Licona and others has been controversial in some Christian circles (especially those holding to strict biblical inerrancy). Nonetheless, it underscores that even believing scholars have questioned the straightforward historicity of Matthew’s account. As one evangelical commentary candidly admits, “All kinds of historical questions remain unanswered about [this event].”​ normangeisler.com Key questions include: Who exactly were these “saints”? How long had they been dead? What happened to them afterwards? The Gospel gives no names or further narrative, leaving a historian with many loose ends. If dozens of identifiable people really rose from graves and went into Jerusalem, one might expect some record in early Christian preaching or Jewish historical accounts – yet we find none outside Matthew. This silence has been a classic argument for skeptics who doubt the event occurred.

Critics like the late author Christopher Hitchens famously quipped that if one Gospel claims “all the graves in Jerusalem opened and their occupants wandered around the streets,” it’s surprising that others don’t mention it – as if “resurrection was something of a banality at the time”, he joked ​behindthegospels.com. His point was that a mass resurrection would be so astonishing that it surely would have become widely known, if historical. Supporters of Matthew’s account have responded that the Gospel writers each had theological motives and selective focus, and that Matthew, writing to a Jewish audience, uniquely included this story to connect Jesus’ death with Old Testament prophecy and the hope of resurrection (more on that below). Saint Augustine, way back in the 4th century, already addressed the discrepancy, arguing that each evangelist was free to report “any particular incident which they were severally disposed to instance as the subject of wonder” ​normangeisler.com. In other words, the Gospel writers chose different signs to highlight; Matthew chose the raised saints, while the others didn’t, without implying any contradiction.

Perhaps what we hold as fundamental dramatically changes our prism!

Scientific and Medical Considerations

From a scientific and medical perspective, a literal reading of Matthew 27:52–53 – that multiple long-dead corpses were reanimated to life – is, of course, inexplicable by natural laws. Modern medical science has documented cases of resuscitation from clinical death, but only under very limited conditions (usually within minutes or hours of the heart stopping). No known biological mechanism can restore life to bodies that have been dead for days or years, let alone in a spontaneous mass event. If the saints Matthew refers to had “fallen asleep” (died) and been buried in tombs, their bodies would have undergone decomposition. Reviving such individuals would require a miraculous suspension or reversal of the natural decay process – something far beyond the realm of medical science. Indeed, if taken as historical, this event would classify as a miracle in the strongest sense: a violation or superseding of normal biological law by divine intervention.

Some attempts have been made (mostly in earlier centuries) to “naturalize” certain biblical miracles – for example, suggesting an earthquake opened tombs and perhaps people thought the dead were raised. However, Matthew’s text is clear that “many bodies of the saints… were raised” and that these persons “appeared to many” in the city. This goes beyond a simple earthquake effect or optical illusion; it describes people formerly dead now seen alive. Scientifically, the only “explanation” for a literal occurrence would be supernatural causation. For believers, that means an act of God’s power. For non-believers operating with methodological naturalism, it means the event as described simply did not happen, since it contradicts everything we know about biology. As the philosopher David Hume argued in his famous essay Of Miracles, by definition a miracle violates the regular laws of nature, and a rational inquirer must weigh the probability of the natural law versus the reliability of the testimony. In cases like this, skeptics find it more plausible that the text is invented or symbolic rather than nature truly being upended.

Reliability of Matthew’s Account

How reliable is Matthew’s account considered today? The answer differs depending on one’s approach. Historical-critical scholars often regard this passage with suspicion, for reasons noted (unique attestation, miraculous content, possible theological motive). Some have even speculated whether the passage could be an interpolation (added later by scribes) or a legend that Matthew himself incorporated. However, there is no hard manuscript evidence that Matthew 27:52–53 is a later addition – it appears in all known manuscripts of Matthew. Scholar Craig A. Evans entertains the idea of a scribal embellishment, but others point out that the vocabulary and style are thoroughly Matthean ​etsjets.org​etsjets.org. In a detailed study, professor Charles Quarles analyzed the Greek language of the verses and concluded that it is “characterized by Matthean vocabulary, style, and theological themes” ​etsjets.org, suggesting Matthew himself composed this material. Quarles also argues the structure reads as historical narrative (not poetry or obvious allegory) and notes that the earliest Christian readers of Matthew – the Church Fathers – took it as literal history ​etsjets.org. In fact, every extant interpretation we have from antiquity treats the raising of the saints as an actual event, not fiction ​etsjets.org. This early reception lends some weight to the account’s authenticity from the perspective of early Christian belief.

That said, modern scholars still debate Matthew’s intent. It is possible Matthew intended the story as a theological truth expressed in vivid story form (a common device in ancient religious writing). The imagery strongly echoes Old Testament prophetic themes: for example, Ezekiel 37 depicts a valley of dry bones that come to life (a symbol of Israel’s restoration, often also seen as a metaphor for resurrection). Matthew’s wording about “many bodies of the saints” being raised would immediately remind Jewish readers of Ezekiel’s vision and God’s promise to “open your graves and raise you from your graves, O my people” (Ezek. 37:12). It also resonates with Daniel 12:2 (“many who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake”) and perhaps Isaiah 26:19 (“your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise”). Matthew may be deliberately echoing these scriptures to imply that Jesus’ death inaugurated the eschatological age when resurrection hope begins to be realized. As Quarles puts it, “Matthew viewed the resurrection of the saints at the time of the crucifixion as a fulfillment of Ezekiel 37 which signaled that the era of the new covenant and new creation had arrived.” ​etsjets.org In this interpretation, the event is theologically “real” – signaling the breaking-in of God’s resurrection power – regardless of whether it was historically observed in a journalistic sense.

In summary, from a historical/scientific vantage point, the resurrection of the saints is extremely improbable as a literal occurrence by ordinary means. It rests on a single, theologically-charged source. Many modern scholars classify it as a legend or apocalyptic symbol in Matthew’s Passion narrative rather than a brute historical fact ​etsjets.org​normangeisler.com. However, others argue we should not so quickly dismiss it: the text is presented as narrative, not explicitly as vision or parable, and early Christians (including Matthew himself, presumably) believed in an almighty God for whom such a miracle was possible. The debate highlights the broader tension in historical Jesus research – how to treat miraculous reports. Ultimately, one’s view on Matthew’s raised saints will depend on how one balances historical-critical skepticism with faith in the supernatural and how one understands the evangelist’s literary and theological methods.

Philosophical Perspective

The story of the sleeping saints rising touches on deep philosophical questions about death, reality, and miracles. Here we explore the metaphysical implications of bodily resurrection and consider various philosophical frameworks for understanding events that defy normal explanation.

Metaphysics of Bodily Resurrection

At its core, Matthew 27:52–53 implies that human persons who had died were restored to embodied life. This raises the classic philosophical (and theological) conundrum: What does it mean for a person to be resurrected? How can the identity of a person persist through death and reconstitution of a body? Philosophers of religion have long debated scenarios of resurrection in terms of personal identity. If the body’s matter has decomposed or been dispersed, by what mechanism can the same person live again? Some, like early Christian thinkers, answer that God miraculously preserves or reassembles the person, potentially by reconstituting a new body and reuniting it with the same soul. This assumes some form of dualism – that an immaterial soul or spirit retains personal identity and can be “re-embodied”. Indeed, traditional Christian metaphysics (influenced by Plato and later Descartes) often posited that at death the soul survives separated from the body, awaiting reunion at a final resurrection. In the case of Matthew’s saints, one could imagine their souls returning to renewed bodies at the moment God acted.

Other frameworks, including modern philosophical materialism, find the notion of personal identity after total bodily death more perplexing. If personhood is entirely a feature of physical brain and body, once those are destroyed it’s hard to see resurrection as anything other than creating a duplicate that has the same memories (if even that). This edges into thought experiments: e.g., if God creates an exact atom-for-atom copy of a long-dead person, is that truly a resurrection of the original, or a replica? Philosophers like John Hick have proposed a “replica” theory of resurrection, in which God creates a perfect copy of the person in a resurrected form; others like Peter Van Inwagen have wrestled with whether God might preserve some core particles or information to ensure continuity. While Matthew’s text doesn’t answer these metaphysical questions (it narrates the event phenomenologically: the dead people came out of tombs), the scenario forces us to think about the nature of life, death, and what it means to come back.

Crucially, the Christian concept of resurrection is not merely the revival of a corpse (as in a transient medical resuscitation) but often entails the idea of a transformed, glorified life. In the New Testament, Jesus’ own Resurrection is the model – he was tangibly physical (his wounds could be touched, he ate fish) yet also changed (appearing and vanishing, not immediately recognized, immortal thereafter). Are Matthew’s raised saints to be thought of like Lazarus – returned to ordinary mortal life temporarily – or as entering a new, immortal mode of existence? The text suggests they appeared to people in Jerusalem, which implies a fairly normal interaction (so perhaps like Lazarus, who eventually died again). On the other hand, some theologians (as we will see) speculated that these saints might have been taken up into heaven after appearing, meaning they were drawn into the eternal resurrection life inaugurated by Christ. The metaphysics differ: a temporary resuscitation means the same earthly body restarted; a true resurrection (in theological terms) could mean a transformed body no longer subject to death. Either way, the possibility of either scenario existing in reality challenges our ordinary assumptions about life and death.

Philosophical Frameworks on Miracles

The story also highlights how different philosophical worldviews handle miraculous phenomena. Broadly speaking, naturalistic philosophies (which assert that reality is governed by unbroken natural laws and usually deny supernatural interventions) will be extremely skeptical of an event like the Matthew 27 resurrection of saints. David Hume’s skepticism is emblematic: he argued that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless its falsehood would be even more miraculous – essentially suggesting that rational people should assume a natural explanation (or fabrication) by default, because miracles violate the uniformity of nature. Applying Hume’s logic here: Which is more likely – that Matthew (or later tradents) introduced a legendary element to convey a point, or that dozens of dead people actually got up from graves? A committed skeptic would say the former is far more likely, given our universal experience that dead people stay dead. Thus, philosophical skepticism sides with the historical-critical view that this account is not literally reliable ​etsjets.org.

On the other hand, a theistic philosophical framework opens the door to the possibility of miracles. If one believes in a God who created nature, then that God can also act within or suspend natural laws. Classic philosophers in the Christian tradition (like St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.) readily affirmed that the laws of nature are under God’s sovereignty. Aquinas defined miracles as events done by God outside the usual order of causes. The raising of the saints would certainly qualify. Augustine in fact defended the plausibility of multiple resurrections. He pointed out that God could hide Moses’ body and raise it later (as implied by the appearance of Moses with Elijah at the Transfiguration), and similarly noted that “at the time of Christ’s passion many bodies of the saints arose…and appeared… in the holy city” ​normangeisler.com. For Augustine, there was no philosophical problem – divine omnipotence makes even mass resurrection possible. The only question is God’s purpose in doing so.

A related philosophical issue is the purpose and interpretation of miracles. If miraculous events occur, they are usually understood to be significant signs that carry meaning beyond the act itself. In the case of Matthew’s raised saints, one can philosophically reflect on what it means if it did happen. It would suggest a reality in which death is not final, where a transcendent power can reverse death – a reality open to dimensions beyond the empirical. It also raises the idea of the collective destiny of humans: whereas one person’s resurrection (Jesus’) could be a unique case, multiple ordinary people being raised suggests a broader implication for humanity (a foretaste of general resurrection). This leans into the philosophy of eschatology – the study of ultimate things. Philosophically, one might say Matthew’s story, whether literal or symbolic, is making an eschatological claim: that the barrier between life and death was shattered at that pivotal moment in history. It invites reflection on human destiny and hope.

In considering miraculous claims, philosophers like C.S. Lewis have noted that one’s prior beliefs weigh heavily. A strict materialist will almost always find a way to explain away or doubt a miracle report; a theist will evaluate the credibility of witnesses and the context, being open to accepting it if there are good reasons. In the case of Matthew 27:52–53, the “witness” is a text written perhaps a few decades after the fact, with clear theological aims. So even a philosophically open-minded person might question the event’s factuality while embracing its meaning. Alternatively, a person might accept it literally, using a coherentist approach (the event fits within the coherent narrative of Christian faith in the resurrection and thus is credible within that worldview).

In summary, the philosophical implications of Matthew’s raised saints include probing what it means to be human (body and soul) and what it means for the dead to live again. It also serves as a case study in how we handle miracle claims: our answer reveals our underlying philosophy. The passage pushes us to consider a worldview in which history and meta-history meet – the natural and supernatural intersecting. Whether one sees it as poetry or fact, the concept itself – of a bodily resurrection unto new life – remains a profound philosophical idea that has occupied thinkers for millennia.

Theological Perspective

From a theological standpoint, Matthew 27:51–53 is rich with significance, and it has been interpreted in various ways across Christian traditions. We will examine how Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox interpreters have understood this passage, noting doctrinal implications, eschatological themes, and its place in broader biblical theology.

Catholic Interpretation and Doctrine

The Catholic tradition, drawing on the Church Fathers and centuries of teaching, generally views Matthew’s account of the raised saints as a literal miracle laden with theological meaning. Catholic scholars and authorities have typically not doubted that the event could have happened – since it is recorded in Scripture – but they focus on why it happened and what it signifies.

Early Church Fathers who are esteemed in Catholic tradition treated the event as factual and deeply symbolic. St. Jerome (4th century), for instance, explicitly compares the raising of the saints to Jesus’ other miracles of raising the dead (such as Lazarus). He says, “As Lazarus rose from the dead, so also did many bodies of the Saints rise again to show forth the Lord’s resurrection.” ​normangeisler.com Jerome emphasizes that the timing was deliberate – he notes that although the tombs opened at Jesus’ death on Friday, the saints did not actually come out “before the Lord rose”, because Christ “might be the first-born of the resurrection from the dead.” ​normangeisler.com This is a critical doctrinal point: it safeguards the primacy of Christ’s Resurrection. Jesus is “the firstborn from the dead” (Colossians 1:18), the firstfruits of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:20). The holy ones were raised after him, not to upstage Jesus but to witness to his victory. Thus for Jerome (and mainstream Catholic thought), the event actually reinforces the truth of Christ’s Resurrection – it’s as if the power of Christ’s triumph over death overflowed to others, certifying that a new age had dawned.

Other Latin Fathers like St. Augustine also affirmed the event. Augustine integrated it into his understanding of the compatibility of the Gospels, arguing there’s no contradiction in only Matthew mentioning it, since God’s power undoubtedly could do many such wonders at the crucifixion ​normangeisler.com. The fact that Matthew alone records it doesn’t make it any less real for Augustine; it simply means this wonder was part of the manifold signs of that holy weekend. Augustine in one comment even lists the raising of the saints alongside the Transfiguration to illustrate that God can bring back the dead at will​ normangeisler.com.

Moving into the medieval era, Catholic theologians continued to affirm the historicity while exploring the implications. St. Thomas Aquinas in his Catena Aurea (a commentary compiling the Fathers) includes the patristic comments on this event, all assuming it occurred. A question that later theologians discussed was: What happened to those resurrected saints afterwards? This is not defined dogma, but individuals speculated. St. Remigius of Reims (5th century) argued that it would have been cruel for those saints to taste mortal life again only to die a second time, and thus he concluded that they must have been taken up to heaven in a kind of ascension following Jesus’ Resurrection​normangeisler.com. “We must by no means give credit”, Remigius writes, to those who say they died again; rather, “we ought to believe without hesitation that they who rose from the dead at the Lord’s resurrection, ascended also into heaven together with Him.”​ This view isn’t explicitly confirmed in Scripture, but it harmonizes with a Catholic sense that by the Resurrection and Ascension, Christ opened the gates of heaven for the righteous. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, while not mentioning Matthew 27:52 specifically, teaches that by descending to the realm of the dead and rising, Christ freed the souls of the just who had died before him (the “Harrowing of Hell”) and opened heaven’s gates (CCC 637). Catholic theology might see Matthew’s risen saints as concrete examples of those just ones, now released from death’s power and taken to glory.

In Catholic biblical scholarship today (as with other modern scholarship), you will find some openness to non-literal interpretations, but the traditional reading remains largely intact in church teaching. The passage is often cited in Catholic writings as evidence of the general resurrection to come and as a sign of hope. It underscores the Catholic belief in the communion of saints – that holy ones who died are still alive in Christ. Here, a few of them even walked visibly among the living as a foretaste of what will happen at the end of time. The event also carries an eschatological message very much in line with Catholic doctrine: it shows the inseparability of Christ’s resurrection from our own. As Pope St. Paul VI wrote, “By rising from the dead Christ has given us a sure hope of our own resurrection”. Matthew’s saints demonstrate that hope tangibly.

Protestant Perspectives

Protestant interpretations of this passage have been diverse, reflecting the wide spectrum within Protestantism from very conservative/literalist to very liberal/skeptical approaches to Scripture.

Historically, the mainline Protestant Reformers (16th century) such as Martin Luther and John Calvin accepted Matthew’s account as part of the biblical narrative and thus true. For them, there was no strong motive to doubt it. John Calvin, for example, in his Commentaries, treated the phenomena at Jesus’ death (darkness, earthquake, saints raised) as real occurrences showing God’s power. The Reformers generally did not allegorize away miracles; they affirmed them to underscore doctrines like Christ’s victory over death and the confirmation of his divinity. That said, they did not build any unique doctrines on the raised saints; it was seen as an extraordinary miracle supporting the Resurrection. Protestant catechisms and confessions do not specifically mention this event, but they do affirm the general resurrection of the dead and Christ’s status as firstborn from the dead, to which this story attests.

In more conservative evangelical circles up to today, there is a strong tendency to defend the historicity of Matthew 27:52–53. Many evangelical commentators read it plainly: Matthew says it, so it happened. They might acknowledge it is a “hard” passage, but as a test of faith in Scripture’s inerrancy, they choose to trust that God did this mighty work. The event is sometimes preached as a demonstration that Jesus’ death conquered sin and death so powerfully that graves broke open. For instance, some pastors have suggested it shows how Jesus is “the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25) – a down payment on the coming resurrection of all believers. It’s also used apologetically to argue that the Resurrection of Jesus had immediate effects on others, proving it was not just one man’s return but the turning point for all humanity. An article on the evangelical site Desiring God notes that “Matthew is showing that the raising of many saints’ bodies at the point of Jesus’s death gives glorious tribute to what was accomplished” – namely, the defeat of death​ desiringgod.org. Such interpretations remain within the realm of devotional theology: they strengthen faith that Christ truly defeated the grave.

However, within academic Protestant scholarship, especially in the last two centuries, many have taken a more critical stance. Liberal Protestant scholars, who might question the literal truth of some biblical narratives, often classify the raised saints as myth or legend. For example, in the 19th century, scholars of the Tübingen school or others influenced by rationalism would have seen this as a clear sign of legendary development in Matthew’s Passion account. In the 20th century, figures in critical scholarship (including some Protestants) felt free to say Matthew’s story is not historical but a symbolic narrative conveying theological truth. This perspective is not universal, but it’s common in scholarly commentaries. Notably, even some evangelical Protestant scholars have entertained non-literal interpretations, as we discussed earlier with Michael Licona and Craig Blomberg. This has caused intra-Protestant debate, since more traditional evangelicals accuse those scholars of undermining biblical authority. The controversy around Licona in 2011–2012, where he was challenged for calling the passage “apocalyptic special effects”, is a case in point​. Norman Geisler, representing a very conservative Baptist viewpoint, insisted that denying the historicity was incompatible with inerrancy​. Ultimately, the Protestant world doesn’t have a single magisterial stance, so interpretations vary from fully literal and historical to literary device or theological midrash.

Doctrinally, Protestants share with Catholics the belief in a future general resurrection and the significance of Christ’s resurrection as the “firstfruits.” Thus, many Protestant theologians (even if unsure about the event’s historicity) would agree that Matthew’s narrative reinforces eschatological themes. It signals that with Jesus’ death and resurrection, the new covenant age has broken in, and the final resurrection harvest is assured (the holy people raised are like the first sheaves of that harvest). Some Protestants also see an implicit connection to the tearing of the temple veil (mentioned in the same context, Matt 27:51): the veil’s tearing symbolizes access to God being opened, and the opened tombs symbolize the grip of death being broken – together signifying that sin’s separation and death’s finality are overcome ​normangeisler.com.

In Protestant preaching, one might hear that the raised saints “testified” to Christ. Who were they? Some speculate biblically: perhaps early martyrs or Old Testament faithful. But since Scripture is silent, this remains conjecture. The emphasis is usually that their appearance to many people in Jerusalem served as a powerful witness that something earth-shattering had occurred in the spiritual realm.

Eastern Orthodox Interpretation

The Eastern Orthodox Church shares much of the early patristic interpretation with the West but often places even greater emphasis on the mystical and cosmic significance of Christ’s death and resurrection. Orthodox theology is steeped in the imagery of Christ’s victory over Hades and the Harrowing of Hell, and Matthew’s account of the saints arising fits naturally into that framework.

Orthodox liturgy and iconography for Easter (Pascha) vividly depict Christ descending into Hades, breaking down its gates, and raising up Adam, Eve, and the righteous of the Old Covenant. An iconic image is that of Christ standing over the broken doors of Hades, pulling up figures who represent the dead. While this iconography is not a direct illustration of Matthew 27:52, it is a theological expression of the same truth: Christ’s resurrection means the resurrection of humanity. The Paschal hymn that Orthodox Christians sing every Easter declares: “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!” In an Orthodox mind, “those in the tombs” certainly includes the incident Matthew describes – it’s an integral part of what happened when Christ died and rose.

Eastern Church Fathers also commented on Matthew’s saints. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (4th century, an Eastern father) in his catechetical lectures affirmed the event and linked it to Christ’s descent to the underworld. He preached that Christ “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.” ​normangeisler.com. Cyril asks rhetorically, wouldn’t we want those who had been imprisoned (in death) since Adam to now gain their freedom? ​normangeisler.com This is a direct reference to the idea that the righteous dead (from Adam onward) were awaiting liberation, and when Christ entered the realm of the dead on Good Friday, he brought salvation to them. This concept, often called the Harrowing of Hades, is extremely prominent in Orthodoxy. Matthew’s mention of the saints coming out of their tombs after Christ’s resurrection is viewed as the historical manifestation of that spiritual victory. In essence, the Orthodox see this text as the Gospel writer’s way of describing the Harrowing of Hell in narrative form – Christ’s triumph wasn’t invisible; it caused actual tombs to yield up their holy occupants.

Orthodox commentators (ancient and modern) thus take the passage quite seriously. Chrysostom, the great Archbishop of Constantinople, highlighted the superiority of Christ’s power by noting that raising people long dead (the saints) was “much more” extraordinary than Jesus’ raising of Lazarus who was four days dead ​normangeisler.com. And Chrysostom explicitly calls it “a proof of the resurrection to come.” ​normangeisler.com The Orthodox emphasis is that this event is eschatological: it proves that the general resurrection prophesied has its beginning in Christ. It’s like the dawn of the resurrection of all flesh.

Orthodoxy doesn’t usually indulge in much speculation about the fate of those saints afterwards – the focus is on what their rising signifies, rather than the biographical details. However, given the theology, it would be natural in Orthodoxy to assume those saints did not return to ordinary life permanently. More likely, they were seen as joining the risen Christ in glory (similar to the view of Remigius we noted, which the East would find agreeable). In any case, the Orthodox are content to treat it as a sacred mystery that exemplifies Christ’s total victory over death.

It’s worth noting that Eastern Christianity, with its more mystical bent, is less concerned with the historical-critical question of “did it literally happen exactly like this?” For the Orthodox, the truth of the event is woven into the truth of the Resurrection itself. It’s proclaimed in the context of worship and song, and it reinforces doctrines like the Resurrection of the Body, the destruction of death, and the unity of the Church across death (since saints of old are alive in Christ). In broader biblical theology, the Orthodox would connect this with 1 Peter 3:19 (Christ preaching to the spirits in prison) and 1 Corinthians 15 (Christ as firstfruits, then those who are Christ’s). The Matthew passage is a concrete instance of what those texts teach: Jesus “trampled down death” and “led captivity captive” (Ephesians 4:8, often interpreted as Christ leading the captives out of Hades).

Eschatological and Theological Themes

Across all traditions, certain key theological themes emerge from Matthew 27:51–53:

• Foretaste of the General Resurrection: The event is commonly understood as a foretaste or prototype of the general resurrection at the end of the age. It’s as if a small-scale resurrection happened as a guarantee that a larger resurrection will happen. This aligns with the doctrine that Christ’s resurrection is the firstfruits (1 Cor 15:20) – implying more will follow. Here, “more” followed immediately in Jerusalem, as a token. As Chrysostom said, it’s proof of the resurrection to come ​normangeisler.com.
• Christ’s Defeat of Death: Theologically, the raising of the saints underscores that Jesus’ death and resurrection have cosmic effects. Death itself is vanquished. When Matthew describes the earth shaking, rocks splitting, tombs opening, he’s portraying a kind of cosmic upheaval. The barriers of sin (the torn veil) and death (the opened graves) are broken. This double symbolism was not lost on any commentator. Eastern and Western fathers alike interpret the earthquake and opened tombs as the earth itself reacting to the momentous act of Christ’s sacrifice, and the hold of death being shattered. The saints appearing confirm “Truly, this was the Son of God!” (Matt 27:54) – even the Roman centurion is said to react with awe at the earthquake and “what had taken place.” In context, “what had taken place” likely includes these tombs opened, making the centurion’s confession an acknowledgment that divine power was at work ​normangeisler.com.
• Old Covenant and New Covenant Unity: Many see in these risen saints the bridging of the Old and New. Possibly, these “holy ones” were Old Testament faithful (like patriarchs or prophets). The text doesn’t name them, but if they were, it beautifully symbolizes that the righteous of the old covenant are not left behind – they share in the redemption Christ brought. They go “into the holy city” (Jerusalem), perhaps symbolizing that the hope of Israel (old covenant) is fulfilled and witnessed in the holy city, just as the gospel is about to spread from Jerusalem outward. Some have even suggested specific identities (e.g., according to later apocryphal legend, Simeon who held baby Jesus in Luke 2 and his two sons were among those raised ​sacred-texts.com). While such identifications are speculative, the theological point is that Jesus is Savior of all humans in all times, and the resurrection life he gives extends to those who died in hope before his coming.
• Verification of Jesus’ Resurrection: Theologically, the presence of multiple risen individuals “to many” in Jerusalem can be seen as additional witnesses to the truth of Christ’s resurrection. Jesus of course appeared to hundreds of disciples after rising (according to Paul in 1 Cor 15:6). The resurrected saints appearing “to many” in the city means there were numerous testimonies circulating that the power of resurrection was unleashed. In a way, they validate Jesus’ own resurrection: if these others rose because of him, then surely he himself rose. St. Ignatius of Antioch (an early 2nd-century Church Father) alludes to the event, implying that it was known in early Christian preaching, and uses it to bolster belief in Jesus’ triumph​ en.wikipedia.org. (Ignatius writes, “He has not risen alone, but has also raised many others of the dead” – a likely reference to Matthew’s saints ​newadvent.org​ earlychristianwritings.com.)
• Apocalyptic Fulfillment: The context of Matthew 27–28 is filled with apocalyptic signs – darkness at noon, earthquakes, angels, etc. The raising of the saints can be viewed in light of Jewish apocalyptic expectation. Second Temple Judaism had strands of belief that the coming of the Messiah or the end times would be accompanied by resurrection of the righteous (drawing from texts like Daniel 12). Matthew, writing to a Jewish audience, may be intentionally framing Jesus’ death-resurrection as that apocalyptic moment when the dead are raised. Dale Allison and others note connections to texts like Zechariah 14 (which speaks of a great earthquake in Jerusalem and the Day of the Lord) and the aforementioned Ezekiel 37. Matthew is effectively saying: What the prophets envisioned for the end of days began when Jesus died and rose. In broader biblical theology, this aligns with the concept of the “already and not yet” – the end-times resurrection has already started (as seen in these saints rising), though it is not yet complete until Christ’s Second Coming.
• Doctrine of the Communion of Saints: Particularly in Catholic and Orthodox thought, this passage is a reminder of the unity of the Church across life and death. The “saints” (a term that can simply mean “holy ones” or faithful believers) are one communion. In Catholic piety, the idea that saints who died are still part of the living Church is important; Matthew’s story provides an image of saints literally moving from death to life, joining the living in celebration of Christ. It is an image of the Church victorious. Eastern Christianity similarly revels in the idea that the boundary between living and departed faithful is thin in Christ. When the Orthodox chant on Easter that Christ bestowed life on those in the tombs, they celebrate that the faithful departed are truly alive in Christ now.

In all these ways, Matthew 27:51–53 serves as a rich theological tableau. Whether one takes it as history or symbol (or something in between), the theological truths it conveys are at the heart of Christian faith: that Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection decisively defeated death, inaugurated the new creation, fulfilled God’s promises, and opened the way of salvation for all His people – from the ancient righteous to the believers yet to be born.

Scholarly Engagement and Debate

The resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27:51–53 has not only been a matter of theological commentary but also of intense scholarly scrutiny. Modern scholars – historians, biblical critics, and theologians – have engaged in robust debate about this text’s meaning and historicity. Here we will highlight some of that scholarship, noting both affirming perspectives and skeptical perspectives, and referencing a few key contributors (as requested, including Dale Allison Jr., Michael Licona, and others).

As mentioned earlier, Dale C. Allison Jr. has approached the passage from a critical yet appreciative angle. In his scholarly work, Allison tends to explore how the Gospel writers use Old Testament echoes to craft their narratives. By calling the story a “Matthean legend”, Allison does not mean to dismiss it as worthless; rather, he implies that the story likely arose as a legendary development – in other words, a narrative expansion that conveys truth through symbolism. Allison and some others have pointed to Ezekiel 37’s vision of dry bones reviving as a likely scriptural source that influenced Matthew. The connection: in Ezekiel, God’s Spirit brings Israel’s dead to life as a sign of national restoration; in Matthew, at the climax of Israel’s story (the Messiah’s sacrifice), a similar resurrection motif appears. Allison also notes Zechariah 14 (which speaks of an earthquake on the Day of the Lord) as another background text. By situating Matthew 27:52–53 in the context of Jewish scriptural hopes, Allison provides a plausible explanation for why Matthew (or the tradition Matthew inherited) included this story – it is theologically fitting, even if not meant as a journalistic report. Essentially, Allison’s stance is respectful skepticism: he respects the evangelist’s artistry and theological message, but remains skeptical that the event transpired exactly as written. This is representative of many mainstream biblical scholars today.

On the other side, Michael R. Licona (an evangelical scholar) actually began with a somewhat similar view to Allison’s – proposing it might be a poetic device – but from within an evangelical context that was less comfortable with calling anything in the Gospels “legend.” Licona’s analysis in The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (2010) treats the resurrection of the saints as one of several “strange” passages that might reflect a genre of dramatic storytelling present in ancient biographies​normangeisler.com. He famously wrote that this pericope could be understood as a symbolic apocalyptic description (he used phrases like “poetical,” “legend,” and “special effects”​normangeisler.com). Licona compared it to phenomena in Greco-Roman literature where prodigious events are reported at the deaths of great figures. For example, some Roman sources say that at Julius Caesar’s death a comet appeared for multiple days (interpreted as his soul ascending). Licona wondered if Matthew, in a Jewish-Christian context, did something analogous – using apocalyptic imagery (earthquake, resurrection) to honor the significance of Jesus’ death.

However, Licona’s published view met backlash from the more conservative wing of Evangelicalism, as it was seen as undermining biblical inerrancy. Norman Geisler and others pressed Licona to retract his suggestion. Licona later nuanced his stance, saying he wasn’t certain the event was non-historical, but merely open to that interpretation​normangeisler.com. This incident highlights how scholarly engagement with this text is not just about historical analysis, but also about one’s doctrinal commitments. It raised the question: Can an evangelical scholar deem a biblical incident “non-literal” and still uphold Scripture’s truth? Licona argued yes, in that the truth intended by the text may be theological rather than literal in such cases; critics like Geisler argued no, that it risked a slippery slope of “dehistoricizing” the Gospels​normangeisler.com​normangeisler.com. The Evangelical Theological Society even had discussions on whether Licona’s approach was acceptable, reminiscent of debates decades earlier over scholar Robert Gundry, who had posited a midrashic (non-literal) reading of Matthew in other places. Indeed, as Geisler pointed out, Gundry too saw some of Matthew’s elements (like this story) as haggadic midrash – meaning an imaginative retelling for edification​normangeisler.com. Gundry’s views led to his resignation from ETS in 1983, indicating how sensitive this can be in conservative scholarship​normangeisler.com.

Meanwhile, other respected scholars have weighed in. Craig Blomberg, an evangelical New Testament scholar, while not dismissing the event, acknowledges the difficulties it poses: “All kinds of historical questions remain unanswered about [it].”​normangeisler.com He ultimately leaves it as a mystery but leans towards accepting it happened since Matthew says so. William Lane Craig, known for defending Jesus’ resurrection, has interestingly sided with the view that Matthew may not have intended a literal report here​normangeisler.com. He notes that many contemporary scholars (even conservatives) suspect Matthew crafted this story to make a theological point, and Craig himself considered that plausible, saying Matthew possibly “did not take it literally.”​normangeisler.com Coming from someone of Craig’s generally conservative stance, that’s telling – it shows how this particular text is regarded with unusual skepticism even among those who otherwise defend Gospel historicity.

On the firmly affirming side, scholars like Charles L. Quarles (as cited earlier) and apologists such as J.P. Moreland or Gary Habermas (who often discuss evidences of the resurrection) tend to maintain that if we have good reason to trust the Gospels generally, we should trust this account too. Quarles’ 2016 article in JETS not only defends Matthean authorship but also painstakingly argues that the passage’s genre is historical narrative, not poetry​etsjets.org​etsjets.org. He brings in the reception history (the fact that patristic interpreters unanimously took it literally) as supporting evidence​etsjets.org. He also attempts to situate it in biblical theology (fulfillment of Ezekiel 37) to show it’s not an oddity but a coherent part of Matthew’s message​etsjets.org. Those who affirm the historicity will often ask, “If one believes in Jesus’ own resurrection (a singular event far outside normal experience), why balk at the idea that a few others were raised too?” From a purely theological standpoint, it’s not more difficult to raise many than to raise one – both are acts of God. So the decision often comes down to evaluating the textual evidence and context rather than possibility. Affirmative scholars point out there is no indication within the text that it’s not meant literally – no “vision” language, no comment by the narrator to signal allegory. It’s woven seamlessly into the narrative of the crucifixion and the aftermath. Thus, to mark it as non-historical, one must posit an implied literary technique. Those who are skeptical respond that the very outrageousness of the claim combined with theological motive is the signal that it’s a special literary device.

Interestingly, some Catholic scholars in the modern era, like Raymond E. Brown, took a middling approach. Brown, in The Death of the Messiah (1998), regarded the story as part of Matthew’s “theological dramatization” of the crucifixion. He didn’t flat-out say it was unhistorical, but he treated it as an extension of the apocalyptic signs. He noted, for example, that Matthew’s wording is somewhat formulaic and that the evangelist likely inferred or crafted such details to show the significance of the moment ​etsjets.org. Brown was known for being faithful to Church teaching yet applying critical methods, and he seemed to lean toward the idea that this narrative’s purpose is theological. Nonetheless, Brown also meticulously catalogued how the early Fathers received it as fact, and as a Catholic he left room for that understanding.

N.T. Wright, a prominent Anglican (Protestant) scholar, while extensively writing on the Resurrection, gives surprisingly little attention to Matthew’s raised saints. In The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003), Wright mentions the incident only briefly, noting that it is a odd story and that some have seen it as Matthean symbolism. Wright himself doesn’t come down firmly; he seems more interested in the central resurrection of Jesus and its second-temple context. One might interpret that as Wright tacitly not relying on this event as evidence for anything (given its peculiarity), but he doesn’t say it didn’t happen. His silence could imply that historically it’s not well-supported enough to factor into his arguments, but theologically it aligns with the Jewish expectation of resurrection accompanying the Messiah.

Finally, beyond the realm of biblical scholarship, skeptical historians (atheist or agnostic scholars) simply include this in the category of legendary accretions. Members of the Jesus Seminar, for instance, would almost certainly mark this as a later myth, not something going back to Jesus or the earliest church. They might compare it to the fantastical elements that can appear in hagiographies or hero biographies. In their view, the probability of such an event is near zero, so the burden of proof is extremely high – and a single Gospel’s testimony is not nearly enough. The lack of other sources and the evident theological slant make it, in their analysis, a pious fiction meant to elevate Jesus’ status. They’d perhaps note that it doesn’t appear in Mark (believed to be the earliest gospel) and suggest Matthew (or the tradition he drew on) added it a generation later, illustrating how stories can grow.

In conclusion, scholarly engagement with Matthew 27:51–53 spans a spectrum:

• On one end, full acceptance (often for theological reasons, emphasizing continuity with Christian doctrine and the integrity of Scripture).
• In the middle, moderate positions that treat it as a powerful symbol drawn from scripture and maybe not intended as a bare fact (Allison’s and Licona’s views, as examples).
• On the other end, outright skepticism that sees it as legend with no historical core.

This particular passage has become almost a litmus test in some debates about Gospel genre: Is Matthew writing sober history here, or is he composing an “apocalypse-made-concrete”? The scholarly conversation remains lively. As of now, there is no consensus; the interpretation one leans toward tends to correlate with one’s broader approach to the Gospels. Importantly, however, even those who doubt the event’s literal historicity often appreciate the theological truth it’s trying to convey. In academia, one can acknowledge the significance of the imagery (resurrection, new covenant, etc.) and the sincerity of Matthew’s belief, while still questioning the factuality. Conversely, those who insist on its historicity argue that separating “fact” and “meaning” too much does violence to the Gospel narrative – for Matthew, presumably, the fact and meaning went hand-in-hand. As the early Church writers believed, so do these scholars: God truly did raise these saints, “to be witnesses of the Lord’s resurrection.” (as an ancient commentary puts it)​normangeisler.com.

Ultimately, the resurrection of the saints in Matthew remains an open topic in biblical studies – a fascinating intersection of history, literature, and theology. As with many such debates, complete proof or disproof is elusive. What we have is a range of interpretations, each with its own merits. The enduring intrigue of this passage lies in that very ambiguity: it challenges both faith and reason to wrestle with what happened (or didn’t happen) on that first Good Friday and Easter.

Conclusion

The brief account in Matthew 27:51–53 of tombs opening and “many” saints being raised to life is one of the Bible’s most enigmatic passages. Our exploration has shown that it can be viewed through multiple lenses, each yielding different insights:

• Scientifically/Historically, it tests the limits of what one can claim as “history,” hinging on one’s openness to the miraculous and the evaluation of scant sources. Contemporary historiography largely doubts its literal occurrence​etsjets.org, yet the possibility of a theological truth being conveyed remains.
• Philosophically, it opens up questions about reality, life, and death. It compels consideration of miracles, the nature of resurrection, and how worldviews shape our acceptance of extraordinary claims. The metaphysical implication is that death is not final – a concept central to the human longing for meaning beyond the grave.
• Theologically, across Christian traditions the passage reinforces core doctrines: Christ’s victory over death, the hope of resurrection for the faithful, and the unity of God’s redemptive plan. Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox all find in it a sign of eschatological hope – even if they differ in emphasis or approach. Early Christians like Chrysostom and Jerome saw it as affirming the coming resurrection for all ​normangeisler.com, a view still echoed in homilies and hymns today.
• Scholarly engagement reveals a healthy debate. Figures like Dale Allison Jr. and Michael Licona highlight non-literal interpretations grounded in literary and historical analysis ​normangeisler.com, while others defend the traditional literal view by pointing to Matthew’s intent and early reception​ etsjets.org. This dialogue exemplifies the broader conversation on how to read ancient religious texts – with both critical inquiry and appreciation for theological narrative.

In the end, the resurrection of the saints in Matthew’s Gospel serves as a rich case study of the interplay between faith and history. For believers, it can be a source of inspiration, envisioning that the power of Christ’s death and resurrection radiated outward to others. For skeptics, it’s a reminder that the Gospels are theological documents where not every detail need be taken at face value. And for all readers, it’s a thought-provoking story that points beyond itself – to the greater reality of resurrection in Afterlife.

Sources:

• Holy Bible, Matthew 27:51–53 (English Standard Version) ​normangeisler.com.
• Geisler, Norman L. The Early Fathers and the Resurrection of the Saints in Matthew 27 (2013) – citing patristic interpretations (e.g. Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine)​ normangeisler.com​.
• Quarles, Charles L. “Matthew 27:51–53: Meaning, Genre, Intertextuality, Theology, and Reception History.” JETS 59.2 (2016): 271–86. – (On majority scholarly view as non-historical symbolism​etsjets.org and fulfillment of Ezekiel 37 imagery ​etsjets.org).
• Licona, Michael R. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (2010) – (Discusses Matthew 27:52–53 as a “weird” fragment possibly meant as poetic or legendary, i.e., literary “special effects”​ normangeisler.com).
• Dale C. Allison Jr., “The Scriptural Background of a Matthean Legend: Ezekiel 37, Zechariah 14, and Matthew 27:51b–53,” in Life beyond Death in Matthew’s Gospel (2018) – (Treats the story as a legend drawing on OT resurrection motifs).
• Blomberg, Craig. Commentary on Matthew (NAC, 1992) – (Notes unanswered historical questions about the raised saints) ​normangeisler.com.
• Craig, William Lane. Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? (1998) – (Comments that few conservative scholars treat Matthew 27:52–53 as historical) ​normangeisler.com.
• Church Fathers: Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures XIV.16–17 ​normangeisler.com【3†L206-L214}; Augustine, The Harmony of the Gospels III.21【31†L270-L279】 – (Both affirm literal rising of saints and theological rationale).
• Gospel of Nicodemus (apocryphal, 4th cent.), which preserves a legend of two resurrected saints (Charinus and Lenthius, sons of Simeon) giving testimony ​sacred-texts.com – illustrating later Christian imagination about the event.