There is a passage towards the end of Matthew in which he states that a number of saints rose from the grave after the resurrection of Jesus:
Matthew 27:51-54 says:
"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; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God."
Muslims state that Matthew must have been lying because such a momentous event like this would have been reported far and wide and yet only Matthew reports it.
However, I would submit that the reason the writers of the other gospels did not mention the multi resurrections was because they were not direct eyewitnesses of it. Remember the 4 gospels were based on the actual events/speeches that were witnessed/heard by the eyewitnesses (except Luke who collated his findings/investigations together from the other eyewitnesses and is remarkably consistent with the other 3 gospels). It could be that only Matthew saw it happen. Maybe Mark and John didn’t see it happen and therefore (as faithful witnesses) did not write it down as they only wrote down what they themselves had seen and heard.
Matthew's gospel was specifically written in a
Jewish/Israel context and so, the temporarily risen saints were mentioned as a testimony against (not to) the Jewish leaders who had rejected their messiah.
Those who were resurrected only appeared in Jerusalem amongst the Jews. Jesus stated the nature of 1st century Jews is that they would not be convinced even if there was a resurrection. Jesus said “they have Moses and the prophets; if they don’t hear these (put their trust in and act out) neither will they believe if a resurrection occurs” Luke 16:31.
Scripture also tells us that signs are for believers (those whose hearts are ready to receive Jesus) and not for unbelievers (those with stony hearts).
If Muslims are asking why such a momentous event was not widely spread then consider if the Jewish or Roman authorities would be willing to publicise this event. If the Jewish leaders went to such great trouble to try falsely propagating that the disciples stole the body of Jesus, then you can be sure that the other event would be hushed up. Also, the Romans wanted to control everything and reign in that area of the world. Would they be keen in publicising anything that would jeopardise the Romans control or take away the peoples worship of caesar and their Babylon originated religion?
The same method is used today in the government controlled news media of the world if they do not want the truth to be heard.
As someone else put it, if the saints appearing were say King David, Abraham, etc then who would recognise them or maybe if recognised many would be scared to mention it as it could appear that they were mad.
The point is that we cannot use fallible, finite human reasoning to decide if the story was true; just because it doesn’t make sense to our minds in the 21st Century. We simply do not know what happened or why it was hushed up, but we CAN trust Matthew’s account as he was simply being a faithful eyewitness telling us what he had seen. If we examine the 4 gospels fairly, we will see that they are incredibly consistent and those that initially seem to disagree (usually over minor points) can be explained.
Please check out this link which goes into great detail why the bible can be trusted:
Matthew 27:51-54 says:
"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; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God."
Muslims state that Matthew must have been lying because such a momentous event like this would have been reported far and wide and yet only Matthew reports it.
However, I would submit that the reason the writers of the other gospels did not mention the multi resurrections was because they were not direct eyewitnesses of it. Remember the 4 gospels were based on the actual events/speeches that were witnessed/heard by the eyewitnesses (except Luke who collated his findings/investigations together from the other eyewitnesses and is remarkably consistent with the other 3 gospels). It could be that only Matthew saw it happen. Maybe Mark and John didn’t see it happen and therefore (as faithful witnesses) did not write it down as they only wrote down what they themselves had seen and heard.
Matthew's gospel was specifically written in a
Jewish/Israel context and so, the temporarily risen saints were mentioned as a testimony against (not to) the Jewish leaders who had rejected their messiah.
Those who were resurrected only appeared in Jerusalem amongst the Jews. Jesus stated the nature of 1st century Jews is that they would not be convinced even if there was a resurrection. Jesus said “they have Moses and the prophets; if they don’t hear these (put their trust in and act out) neither will they believe if a resurrection occurs” Luke 16:31.
Scripture also tells us that signs are for believers (those whose hearts are ready to receive Jesus) and not for unbelievers (those with stony hearts).
If Muslims are asking why such a momentous event was not widely spread then consider if the Jewish or Roman authorities would be willing to publicise this event. If the Jewish leaders went to such great trouble to try falsely propagating that the disciples stole the body of Jesus, then you can be sure that the other event would be hushed up. Also, the Romans wanted to control everything and reign in that area of the world. Would they be keen in publicising anything that would jeopardise the Romans control or take away the peoples worship of caesar and their Babylon originated religion?
The same method is used today in the government controlled news media of the world if they do not want the truth to be heard.
As someone else put it, if the saints appearing were say King David, Abraham, etc then who would recognise them or maybe if recognised many would be scared to mention it as it could appear that they were mad.
The point is that we cannot use fallible, finite human reasoning to decide if the story was true; just because it doesn’t make sense to our minds in the 21st Century. We simply do not know what happened or why it was hushed up, but we CAN trust Matthew’s account as he was simply being a faithful eyewitness telling us what he had seen. If we examine the 4 gospels fairly, we will see that they are incredibly consistent and those that initially seem to disagree (usually over minor points) can be explained.
Please check out this link which goes into great detail why the bible can be trusted:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment