How does Matthew 27:63 challenge the reliability of Jesus' resurrection prediction? Matthew 27:63—Text and Immediate Context “‘Sir,’ they said, ‘we remember that while He was alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’” The chief priests and Pharisees address Pilate on the afternoon of Christ’s crucifixion (cf. 27:62). Their words constitute hostile testimony that Jesus predicted His own resurrection. The Alleged Challenge 1. Some skeptics argue that because the opponents recall the prophecy, yet the disciples appear confused (cf. Luke 24:11), the prediction is late church invention. 2. Others claim a contradiction between “after three days” (Matthew 27:63; Mark 8:31) and “on the third day” (Matthew 16:21; Luke 9:22). 3. A minority suggests Matthew fabricated the scene to explain an empty tomb guard detail. Hostile Attestation Strengthens, Not Weakens, Reliability Ancient historians prize enemy admission (the “criterion of enemy attestation”). Here, Christ’s foes freely acknowledge His public prediction. In legal-historical analysis this counts as powerful corroboration, for inventing words that embarrass one’s own group would undermine the author’s purpose (cf. John 18:14). Thus the verse supports, rather than challenges, authenticity. “After Three Days” vs. “On the Third Day”: A Semitic Idiom Hebrew and first-century Jewish Greek used inclusive reckoning: any part of a calendar day counted as a whole. Examples: • Esther 4:16 → 5:1—“Fast for me… three days…; on the third day Esther put on her royal robes.” • 1 Samuel 30:12-13—David learns a servant had eaten no food “for three days” yet was found “today.” • Hosea 6:2—“After two days He will revive us; on the third day He will raise us up.” Thus “after three days” (meta treis hēmeras) and “on the third day” (tē tritē hēmera) are interchangeable idioms, not contradictions. Jesus was in the tomb parts of Friday, all of Saturday, and part of Sunday—three days by Jewish count. Multiple Predictions Across Independent Sources Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34, Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Luke 9:22; 18:33, and John 2:19-22 preserve distinct prophecy forms: aphorism (“Destroy this temple”), passion-predictions, and parabolic hints (Jonah sign, Matthew 12:40). Their literary diversity and early attestation (pre-70 AD Markan source) make fabrication unlikely. Early Creedal Confirmation 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 (AD 30-35) cites a pre-Pauline creed: “…that Christ died… that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures…” The time-stamp precedes any Gospel writing, proving the resurrection prediction/tradition is primitive, not Matthean creation. Guard Detail and Polemic Background Matthew alone records the guard (27:64-66; 28:11-15). Yet the earliest Jewish counter-story—“the disciples stole the body”—is independently preserved in Justin Martyr (Dial. Trypho 108) and Tertullian (De Spect. 30). Paul’s audience in Corinth (1 Corinthians 15:12) likewise faced denial of resurrection, not claims of a missing guard. Therefore Matthew responds to an extant allegation, not inventing one. Archaeological and Historical Corroborations • The rolling-stone tombs and blocking-grooves around Jerusalem (e.g., the Tomb of the Herods) match the burial setting (Matthew 27:60). • Ossuary inscriptions from the first century (“James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”) confirm Gospel-era naming conventions, anchoring the narrative in verifiable history. • Nazareth house excavations (2009) rebut claims that the village did not exist in Jesus’ day, reinforcing Gospel credibility. Philosophical Coherence within Intelligent Design The predictive statements of Jesus fit a theistic universe where an omniscient Creator can reveal future events. Materialist objections presume naturalistic uniformity; however, origin-of-life research (e.g., the information-rich digital code of DNA) already demands a designing mind. Miraculous resurrection is not ontologically impossible in such a framework. Theological Significance Matthew 27:63 records unbelievers calling Jesus “that deceiver,” yet even their words testify God’s plan: opponents unwittingly certify the prophecy they seek to suppress (Acts 2:23). Scripture’s harmony emerges—what enemies meant for suppression God used for validation (Genesis 50:20 principle). Conclusion Far from challenging reliability, Matthew 27:63 supplies hostile, early, and multiply-attested evidence that Jesus publicly foretold His resurrection. The idiom “after three days” harmonizes naturally with “on the third day,” manuscript tradition is pristine, archaeological and psychological data align, and the verse ultimately strengthens the case that Christ rose exactly as He said—securing salvation and demonstrating the faithfulness of God’s Word. |
    |