And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. 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. When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

–Matthew 27:51-54

In Licona’s most recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, he says this about the above passage:

This brings us to that strange little text in Matthew 27:52-53, where upon Jesus’ death the dead saints are raised and walk into the city of Jerusalem. During Jesus’ crucifixion and upon his death, Mark and Luke report two phenomena that occurred: there is darkness and the temple veil is torn in two (Mk 15:33, 38; Lk 23:44-45). John is silent on the matter. Matthew likewise reports the darkness and tearing of the temple veil but adds four more phenomena: the earth quakes, the rocks split, the tombs are opened, and the dead saints rise up and walk into Jerusalem after Jesus’ resurrection (Mt 27:51-54).

Raymond E. Brown notes that similar phenomena were reported at the death of Romulus and Julius Caesar.296 Confining himself only to those who wrote within one hundred years on either side of Jesus’ death, his examples include Plutarch (Rom. 27.6; Caes. 69.4), Ovid (Fast. 2.493), Cicero (Rep. 6.22), Virgil (Georg. 1.466-488), Josephus (Ant. 14.12.3; 309) and Pliny (Nat. 2.30; 97). In a clearly poetic account, Virgil reports that the following sixteen phenomena occurred after Caesar’s death: prolonged darkness, dogs and birds acted unusually, Etna erupted, fighting in the heavens was heard, the Alps shook near Germany, a powerful voice was heard in the groves, pale phantoms were seen at dusk, cattle spoke portents, streams stood still, the earth opened up, ivory idols wept and bronze idols were sweating in the shrines, dark intestines appeared outside of animals in their stalls, blood trickled in springs, wolves howled, lightning appeared in a cloudless sky, a bright comet was seen.

…

Given the presence of phenomenological language used in a symbolic manner in both Jewish and Roman literature related to a major event such as the death of an emperor or the end of a reigning king or even a kingdom, the presence of ambiguity in the relevant text of Ignatius, and that so very little can be known about Thallus’s comment on the darkness (including whether he was even referring to the darkness at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion or, if so, if he was merely speculating pertaining to a natural cause of the darkness claimed by the early Christians), it seems to me that an understanding of the language in Matthew 27:52-53 as “special effects” with eschatological Jewish texts and thought in mind is most plausible.

There is further support for this interpretation. If the tombs opened and the saints being raised upon Jesus’ death was not strange enough, Matthew adds that they did not come out of their tombs until after Jesus’ resurrection. What were they doing between Friday afternoon and early Sunday morning? Were they standing in the now open doorways of their tombs and waiting?

–Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus

In contrast to Licona’s critics, I have not cherry picked fragments of his comments to make him look glib. I quoted a large part of what he said in full. When you read the entire text, you see the flow of his argument much more clearly than you would when reading Geisler or Mohler’s commentary on it. I’m a stickler on large quotes. Especially when you’re going to to call somebody down in public. It just will not do to quote sentence fragments when someone’s reputation and career is on the line. But that seems to be Mohler and Geisler’s motif. Mohler’s article in particular reads like a political op-ed in the Washington post, rather than a technical critique of the argument’s merits or lack thereof. It contributes nothing to the debate except rhetoric.

I, for myself, have no problem with a literal interpretation of this passage. I also don’t mind it being taken as period-accurate embellishment. I’m agnostic on the matter. If I had to pick one side or the other I would fall on the literal historical event side. But, like I said, it’s not a hill I’m going to die on. The reason I have no problem with either side is that this is simply a hard passage.

The fact that this is a hard passage of scripture seems non-controversial to me. I mean, what are these raised dead? They clearly are not glorified bodies since the passage indicates they were raised prior to Christ himself(the “firstfruits” of the resurrection). So, sans glorified body, what did they eat and drink in the tombs while they were waiting for three days to come out? What happened to them when they finished walking around Jerusalem? Did they continue on living, aka Lazarus, or did they return to their tombs and re-die? Why are these details missing, when in every other case in scripture resurrection from the dead is treated with the utmost detail? Mohler addresses this line of questioning by saying:

This is a very troubling argument. First of all, if we ever accept the fact that we are to explain what anyone in the Bible was doing when the Bible does not tell us, we enter into a trap of interpretive catastrophe. We are accountable for what the Bible tells us, not what it does not.

–Albert Mohler, Blog

Of course, it’s not that simple. When an event is described, we have no choice than to make deductions about intervals between beacon points within the narrative. If someone says “Joe stood in the doorway, staring at the sun.” And the very next line says, “One day, six years later, Joe heard the phone ring. He picked it up…,” are we to believe that Joe stood in the doorway for six years until the phone rang? Of course not. It’s perfectly valid to mentally fill in that gap with something akin to normal everyday life.

When Matthew says, “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,” this is not easy to interpret. There is a gap with no clear indication from the preceding or postceding landmarks as to what could have happened in the middle. The harder it is to bridge that gap, the more likely it is that the passage isn’t meant as a historical event. You could say something like “if God raised them then he would have given them food and water for a few days while they waited, or miraculously made their bodies not need these things.” But, that seems like a dodge. The fact that none of these details are present is rather odd when compared to the other resurrection accounts.

Like I said, I believe the account is historical. But it’s still a tough passage. Admitting that doesn’t sabotage inerrency in the slightest.

It’s also worth noting that the most probably cause that I can see of Geisler picking up his pitchfork against Licona in the first place is because Licona mentions Robert Gundry in his discussion of this passage. Robert Gundry was expelled from ETS after a push by Geisler in the early 80′s. This fact makes me wonder if Geisler simply had a knee-jerk reaction to seeing Gundry’s name as a reference. Who knows?

My biggest concern, however, is a broader one about on-line theological debate. This whole thing smacks of the NT Wright controversy all over again, as we have prominent evangelical leaders calling out a well-respected New Testament scholar publicly over one controversial statement in a massive work. And, just like with Dr. Wright, it’s all being done at lightning speed on the internet. This has the effect of speeding up the debate to a break neck pace, so that there is very little room for charity and thoughtfulness.

Evangelical leaders need to learn how to use their internet voices in a responsible way. Careers and reputations can be ended overnight with a single 500 word blog post from a person with the right pedigree. That type of power must be treated with care. Debates such as this one need to be initiated and incubated at ETS, or within theology journals. Or, heaven-forbid, in private discussions. Email still works, and so does the phone.

NT Wright got the chance to eventually clarify his position at last year’s ETS. This is partly because of his very long body of work and immense level of respect within the evangelical community. My fear is that Dr. Licona will not get that same opportunity. The veiled threats from Mohler of being expelled from ETS are simply mean spirited and extremely premature.

In much the same way that John Piper set his will against NT Wright early on in that discussion and never stopped publicly savaging him, it seems that Mohler and Geisler have unilaterally decided that Licona is unorthodox with virtually no input from other textual scholars. This is not a good sign for the state of public evangelical debate.

The first thing that comes to mind is the simple act of changing jobs. Let’s say that in the last year, your particular industry experiences a major increase in taxes and regulations that leaves you making far less money. Should you look for a new job? Well, if you take Romans 13 in the traditional sense, it would be wrong to do so. You would be trying to usurp God’s authority as he carries out his plan through the hand of government. After all, that’s exactly what it says:

[2] Therefore, whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

But, that doesn’t make any sense. Changing jobs is a common sense thing to do based on a set of conditions. It doesn’t matter how those conditions, such as reduced pay, hostile work environment, etc., come about. That’s incidental. A hostile or dangerous work environment is a condition in and of itself. How that condition arises – whether by government, change of management, natural disaster, etc. – can’t be a conditional that valid adherence to a doctrine requires, because of the possibility of conflicting conditionals. For instance, what if you are employed by the government? In that scenario, two conditionals(one that violates the doctrine and one that fulfills it) now coexist.

The same problem arises when you think about moving. Let’s say you live right on the Eastern border of Alabama. One day, the Georgia legislature decides to eliminate their state income tax. Moving 30 minutes away to Georgia could save you a few thousand dollars a year. Can you move? Are you violating Romans 13 if you do by not subjecting yourself to the governing authorities?

Here’s a clearer example. Let’s say that you live in Hawaii and you’re independently wealthy. You decide to buy an island in the pacific and move there. The island has no government. It’s government is you. Now, did God ordain you as the government of that island? Who do you submit to? Yourself? Is everything you do right by default?

See the problems here? The traditional view of this passage creates so many interdependent conditionals that it’s impossible to fulfill. As I said last time, I think the best interpretation of this passage is that Paul is saying that God ordains what good government is. If you find yourself under such a government then submit to it. If you find yourself under a “government” that violates what Paul describes, you are not under any obligation, because that isn’t the government he is talking about.

I’m going to go with a bottom-up approach, using John Macarthur’s hermeneutic rule that you always take the plain reading of a passage as it’s actual meaning unless the passage itself forces you not to. Then you work your way out to solve any conflicts with other scripture. This may seem odd, since the usual inclination is to work from that larger context down to the smaller so as to preserve contextual meaning. But, in this case, the problem with this passage isn’t contextual.  It’s internal.  I’ll do my best to explain.

Here’s what Romans 13 says (verse numbers in [brackets]):

[1] Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. [2] Therefore, whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. [3] For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; [4] for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

[5] Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. [6] For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. [7] Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

[8] Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

–Romans 13, NASB

The plain, and most widely accepted interpretation of this passage is that Paul is telling us to submit to “government” because God has put “government” in place. Therefore, if we rebel against “government”, we are essentially rebelling against God’s very plan.

It’s my contention that this can’t be the meaning of this passage. The reason it can’t is because, if that’s what Paul is indeed saying, then he is lying or he is ignorant. And, neither one of those is a hermeneutical option for believers. This is one of those passages that seems to have a very clear meaning, but when you work it out in your mind, you find that the clear meaning is fraught with problems. Let me lay out the problems you will have to accept if you take the standard interpretation:

• In verse 3, the standard interpretation will require you to live in a fantasy world where good deeds are always applauded by government and bad deeds are always punished.
• Verse 4 will required you to believe that all war that is waged by the state, and all capital punishment, is justly administered.
• Verse 5 seems to indicate that taxes are the primary method by which God has chosen to fund these governments that he has put in place.

Verses 3 and 4 are what blow up the whole standard interpretation of this verse.  Paul simply can’t mean what it sounds like he means here.  If Paul is really saying that government always celebrates good and punishes evil then he is delusional.  But, we know that’s not the case.  Paul himself was unjustly imprisoned and killed by Rome, and he saw the rampant imperialistic wars that Rome waged all over Europe to enslave it’s people. He knew, more than most, how rampantly corrupt government is, and how unjustly it treats it’s subjects.

And, in our own time, we have seen one murderous regime after another during the 20th century.  From Stalin to the Holocaust to Pol Pot, we know that government doesn’t operate in the way Paul describes here.  Instead, they punish good and reward evil all the time.  He knew better than to make a statement like that.  And, that’s why I can’t accept that, that’s what he meant.  There must be some other interpretation that doesn’t require Paul to be clearly denying reality(i.e. insane).  So, what could that be?

Well, what Paul is describing here is “government.”  That word is the critical point to understanding all of this.  Remember the law of non-contradiction:  A is NOT equal to non-A.  Therefore, if the thing(government) that Paul is describing is not identical to the thing we are thinking about (government as we know it), then we aren’t talking about the same thing.  Paul is talking about something different.  Put more plainly, what Paul is talking about here is not the thing we know as government.  It can’t be, because the properties he ascribes to “government” don’t match the properties we see in “government.”  He means one thing.  We mean something else.

It’s plain to me that he’s talking about what government is supposed to be.  He’s describing government in it’s truest form.  It’s pure form.  But, not everything that claims to be a certain thing really is.  What North Korea calls it’s government isn’t a government.  It’s a gang of dictators that are holding that country hostage.  Just because they label themselves as a government doesn’t mean that they actually are one.  I can call myself the President of Uganda.  That doesn’t mean that I actually am.

And this leads to the correct interpretation of this passage:  when government fulfills it’s role, it’s ordained by God, and we are subject to it.  When government violates it’s role as Paul has defined it, that government is no government at all.  Therefore, it can’t be ordained by God, because it’s something different than what Paul describes.

This is getting really long, so I’ll pick it back up next time to talk about the problem of movement that you encounter if you accept the standard interpretation.

So with that in mind, here is the argument:

The martyrdom argument is very strong because it relies on the fact that the death of such an important figure like an apostle would have shaken the foundations of the entire christian church each time it happened. The early church fathers also alluded to the martyrdom of the apostles very heavily. To me it’s almost easier to see the destruction of the temple being left out rather than the death of an apostle. A fledgling group such as early christianity can survive many things such as relocation and persecution, but the death of a leader is terribly hard to overcome.

So how do we date the books of the New Testament? Were they written before 100 AD as Christian apologists claim or were they written as late as 200-300 AD as claimed by the Jesus Seminar and others? First, I’m going to give you Koukl’s argument for an early dating of the NT canon and then I’ll give you another one next time.

Koukl argues like this:

This is significant. If we can date the gospels to sometime in the 50’s AD, that is within 30 years of the death of Christ and still well within the lifetime of most of the apostles. That more than qualifies for eye-witness status as well as genuine apostolic authorship. A shorter version of the argument can just say that since the destruction of the temple is never mentioned in the NT, we can assume that it hadn’t happened by the time the books were written, with the exception of The Revelation of John(who was in exile at the time). That still puts the gospels and epistles as having been written within 37 years of Christ’s death.

I like Koukl’s argument and I think it’s very powerful. The destruction of the temple and the dispersion of the Jews in 70 AD was an absolutely catyclismic event within early Judeo-christianity. Jerusalem was still the center Judaism and Christianity. For such an event not to be present at all in the NT books would be incredible if they had been written later. It would be like the civil war not being mentioned in an American history book written in 1890. Some have tried to argue that Jesus’s prophesy of the temple’s destruction is proof that the books were written later, because after all, nobody knows the future, right?

That argument only works if the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and Acts are prone to that type of deception. I think it’s pretty obvious that they aren’t. Let me give a few examples of the way the gospel writers normally handle fulfilled prophesy:

In addition to these you have Mat. 1:22, Mat. 2:15, Mat. 2:17, Mat. 2:23, Mat 4:14, etc. There are too many to enumerate here. Just do a word search in the gospels for the word “fulfilled” and you will see that it is very much the style of the gospel writers to point out any time a prophesy is fulfilled. To pass up an opportunity to point out the fulfillment of the 70 AD prophesy should be just too much for any honest historian to accept. Furthermore, it lends honesty to the gospel accounts to see how many times they point out where a prophesy was fulfilled. It give’s the gospels an air of “please believe me”.

Furthermore, in order to believe that the prophesy of the events of 70 AD were included as a deception, you would have to also assume that it’s fulfillment was left out to make the deception more believable. I would say that this is an anachronism on the part of today’s higher critics. Their is no reason to believe that future dating disputes over the gospels would even be an issue in the mind of a 2nd century christian. Next time I’ll give you a different but still powerful dating argument.