It is usual to consider this as a visible occurrence, of which the natural city of Jerusalem was the locality: but a little reflection will show this to be a mistake. Those who believe that view of the case know it to be full of difficulties; they suppose many things, in order to avoid them, and yet acknowledge that conjecture is but a poor interpreter. We hold that the natural world could not have been the scene of the transaction, and that the carnal Jerusalem was not "the holy city." There are no parallels between this case, and the raising of Lazarus and the widow's son. These were restored to their friends, and were known to their enemies; and they died again. They were the subjects of wonder among men, and testified to the love and the power of Him by whom their raising was effected. But at the coming of the saints out of their graves, which is a much more extraordinary occurrence than either of these, no astonishment whatever is recorded. Matthew is the only evangelist by whom it is related; it is not alluded to in any of the epistles, nor in any other portion of the Scriptures. It is simply mentioned as an incidental occurrence connected with the resurrection of the Lord, and left without remark or reflection. Surely this could hardly have been the case, if many who had been dead and buried had walked out of their sepulchres into Jerusalem, and were seen by many! It cannot be reasonably supposed that such an amazing event would have been observed in silence: there could have been no motive for secrecy; the obvious result of such an occurrence must have been great excitement and publicity. The apostles must have been acquainted with it; and, doubtless, they would have made use of it as an argument in favour of the mission in which they were engaged, had it been a transaction in the natural world, to which they could have referred;
Page:The Last Judgement and Second Coming of the Lord Illustrated.djvu/119
