Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo: Matthew 27:50-54 was not a historical event. || John Pesebre

May mga ilang Christians na nagsasabi na hindi daw historical event yung Matthew 27:50-54. Na pang tila baga cinematic effect lang 'yon.

Question 1: What is the brief statement of the doubt?

Minsan ang objection ay naglalaman ng maraming lamang salita, kaya nararapat lamang na i-analyze mo ito ng maayos at kung may ma identify kang maraming issue, okay lang na pumili ka ng isa o di kaya’y yung buod ng sinasabi sa pagkaunawa mo, and then ibalik mo sa kanya kung accurate ang pagkasabi mo. Ganito ang ginawa ko sa isa kong kausap na si Dominic. Eto ang una niyang sinabi,

• Wondering what happened to those dead jews who rose from their graves and walked towards jerusalem. ( Matt 27:50-54 ). Did they join their families and lived a few more years ? How could their families even recognize them ? Had their death certificates been invalidated because they were resurrected ? what happened to their rotting bodies ? and how could they even walk ?

 Ang statement ng doubt na binalik ko sa kanya na nag agree naman siya is ganito: “Ang concern mo ba Dominic is that this looks too mythical to be historical? Parang you were setting up a few criteria doon to validate or invalidate if it was indeed a historical event.” So for question 1 natin dito, eto ang statement ng doubt: “Matthew 27:50-54 was not a historical event.”

Question 2: Where did this doubt come from?

It is understandable that atheists would throw doubts on this event. The notion that Jesus’ resurrection did not happen has simply gone since the death of Christ. So this question does not have any features of novelty or uniqueness. Which then leads us to this portion in Matthew na tila baga pruweba ng kawei-weirdohan ng Christianity. Tama na banggitin nila na ang mga earliest surviving Greek manuscripts natin ng Gospel of Matthew really have this text and not one of the early church fathers disputed its authenticity.
It is important to note that well known conservative Christians scholars like Dr. Mike Licona suggests that this was just an apocalyptic device that is poetic rather than historical. Sabi niya, “It seems best to regard this difficult text in Matthew as a poetic device added to communicate that the Son of God had died and that impending judgment awaited Israel.”* Symbolical siya at hindi historical. So it is not only the atheists who wrestle with the weight of this issue.

Malaki ang problema din natin kaya malaking issue ito. One reason is that if this is a fabrication, and if it is obvious that it is a fabrication and yet Christians still believe it, then Christians have committed intellectual suicide rendering them as devoid of any intellectual integrity.

Another reason would be, such intellectual suicide proves that Christians have blind faith and it offends modern rational man that such nonsense still permeates us today.

Question 3: What is wrong about this doubt?

Actually there are strong arguments that Matthew 27:50-54 is a historical event.

Question 4: How is it wrong?

Let’s make a few affirmation. Ayon sa John 16:13 with Jesus speaking to the apostles, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.” From the perspective of the Gospel writers, they are writing a truthful account of events surrounding Jesus’ life on earth. They were writing as eyewitnesses or heavily dependent on eyewitness accounts. J. Warner Wallace writes,

• It’s interesting the strategy used by the apostles to share the truth of Christianity was consistent with their role as eyewitnesses. When the apostles chose to share what they believed with the unbelievers in their midst, they did so by proclaiming the truth of the resurrection and their own status as eyewitnesses. This is consistent throughout the Book of Acts. The apostles identified themselves as eyewitnesses, shared the truth as eyewitnesses, and eventually wrote the Gospels as eyewitnesses. 

Some of you might say that not all of the accounts in the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses such as Mark and Luke. But Wallace is saying that the “apostles” were eyewitnesses. That is the key feature of the writing. Moreover all these Gospels were written at the time when the apostles and eyewitnesses were still alive to verify. In 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul writes down a hymn he received from the apostles that included the resurrection of Christ. Napaka unlikely na Paul would write it down na may mga tao nga na tumutuligsa sa authenticity nya as apostle. Ang punto ko is, magbibigay pa ng kasinungalingan sii Paul -- eh di lalo na siyang napulaan kasi nga wala namang magku confirm na eyewitnesses sa claim nya na nag resurrect si Kristo. Subalit ano ginawa ni Pablo? Iniisa isa pa niya yung mga taong pwedeng kumpirmahan ng nakakabasa,

• and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.  Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.  Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (vv5-8) 

Sabi ni Kristo sa John 16:13 ay He will guide the apostles into all truth. And it suits well sa commitment ng mga apostles to include this story kasi it was the truth.

By way naman of refutation or negative apologetics, ang knowledge claim ng mga kritiko should be substantiated. What I have observed coming from both atheists at yung ibang mga Christians is that hindi porke walang record na nangyari ang isang event ay hindi na ito nangyari. Maraming nangyari sa buhay natin ang walang historical record pero they actually happened. Sa kaso na ito sa Matthew, we have a record from apostolic witness and others that became part of an oral tradition ng isang community na isa sa mga major features ng kanilang pananampalataya is trustworthiness because they are serving a trustworthy God. Moreover, napaka crucial netong kwento na ito para imbentuhin lang sa literary unit ng Gospels. Pinapakita dito ang kakayanan ng Panginoon na magpanumbalik ng pisikal na buhay, hindi lang ng spiritual. Kaya naman ang suspicion na hindi ito nangyari ay tila baga galing lang sa pagdududa at hindi sa kabuuang mensahe at pagtatala ng kasaysayan na nais ibahagi ng ebanghelyo.

Question 5: What wrong idea about God is this doubt trying to create?

Napakatagal na ng kasaysayan natin na makakita at makarinig ng mga tao na punung-puno ng panunugayaw o disdain sa ating Panginoon. Sa doubt natin ngayon ay punto is that God is untrustworthy or a trickster that produces writers who are also untrustworthy and tricksters. In the end sa totoo lang, sa tingin ko the main argument for them is that God does not exist.

Question 6: What is the Biblical teaching about God that recuperates this wrong idea about God?

God is a God of truth. In Psalm 95:4-5 this is what the Psalmist says, “Make me to know your ways, O Lord; teach me your paths. Lead me in your truth and teach me,for you are the God of my salvation; for you I wait all the day long.” Here you have an affirmation of the Psalmist’s understanding of what God can give him -- the truth.

Question 7: What application can you draw from this correct teaching about God?

Sa verse na ‘yan, ano ang mga hinihiling ng Psalmist bukod sa katotohanan? Sino ang Diyos sa Kanya? Ano ang gagawin niya para makamit ang kaniyang kahilingan?

You can meditate on this verse by answering the question: What petition can I humbly ask God to reveal to me about a struggle that I have right now? How important is that to you?

Question 8: What action point can you resolve to do at this point?

A common habit that believers should develop in terms of daily prayer is petitioning God to reveal something. Usually it is something that causes uneasiness and anxiety to us. As you pray daily, may you continue to ask God that you grow in understanding and wisdom with what is going on with your life.

(Photo Credit)

-------
*The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, 553