Matthew Chapter 28 — The Empty Tomb

Overview

UPDV chapter 28 covers the women's arrival at the tomb (28:1), the angel's appearance (28:2), the angel's message (28:3-4), and the women's flight (28:5). This material comes from Matt 28:1, 28:2-3, 28:5, 28:6, and 28:8.

This is the shortest chapter in UPDV Matthew — five verses, drawn from a canonical chapter of twenty. The removals are extraordinary: the earthquake and guards' terror (28:2b, 4), the Galilee instruction (28:7), Jesus meeting the women (28:9-10), the guard bribery narrative (28:11-15), and the Great Commission (28:16-20) are all omitted. The reconstruction ends where Mark ends: women at an empty tomb, an angelic message, and flight in fear.

The Women at the Tomb (28:1)

"Now late on the Sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb." This verse passes through unchanged from Matt 28:1.

Mark 16:1 names three women — Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome — and specifies their purpose: to anoint the body with spices. Matthew reduces the group to two and changes the purpose to merely "seeing" the tomb. D&A note that "the other Mary" references Matt 27:56, 61 and that the compiler replaced Mark's fuller identification. The reduction from three women to two is Matthean redaction, but the UPDV follows Matthew's form here — the verse stands as transmitted. There is a tension with the UPDV's treatment of 28:5, where the reconstruction actively restores Mark 16:8's wording (importing "fled" from Mark into Matthew). If the UPDV reverts to Mark at the end of the pericope, the failure to revert at the beginning — restoring Salome and the anointing purpose — is an inconsistency in the methodology's application, even if the subtractive approach nominally explains the difference.

The Angel's Appearance (28:2)

"And look, an angel appeared. His appearance was as lightning, and his clothing white as snow." The UPDV combines Matt 28:2-3 but strips the earthquake, the descent from heaven, the stone-rolling, and the sitting on the stone.

The canonical text reads: "And look, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat on it. His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow." The UPDV keeps the angel's description but removes the dramatic staging that surrounds it.

D&A assign Matt 28:2-4 as a unit to the same pre-Matthean guard tradition that includes 27:62-66 and 28:11-15. They argue these three passages "together form a coherent, self-contained story, and which contain features not typical of Matthew" — a guard narrative cycle that "probably constituted a traditional piece, one also taken up in the Gospel of Peter." The earthquake, the angel's descent, and the guards' terror all belong to this M source; D&A note that all the elements "recall the signs expected to accompany the coming of the Lord at the end of the world and the irruption of the Kingdom of God."

The UPDV splits the unit: it keeps the angel (who must be present to deliver the message in 28:3-4) but strips the guard-tradition staging. Mark's parallel (16:5) has the women enter the tomb and find "a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe." Matthew's compiler transformed Mark's νεανίσκον (neaniskon, "young man") into an ἄγγελον κυρίου (angelon kyriou, "angel of the Lord") — though Evans notes that Mark "likely intended his readers to understand that the 'young man' was an angel," and Matthew "clearly and correctly understands" the identification. The UPDV's revision is a hybrid: it retains Matthew's explicit "angel" language while stripping the guard-tradition staging that surrounds it.

The Guards' Terror — Omitted (Matt 28:4)

"And for fear of him the watchers quaked, and became as dead men." Omitted as {Ou}. This verse belongs to the M guard tradition — D&A note it creates an ironic contrast with the centurion at 27:54: "where the guards who experience an earthquake and other wonders fear and come to faith; here the guards who experience an earthquake and other wonders fear but do not come to faith." The wordplay between σεισμός (seismos, "earthquake") and ἐσείσθησαν (eseisthēsan, "quaked") is Matthean artistry. Since the guards were introduced in the omitted 27:62-66, they cannot appear here — the omission is structurally necessary.

The Angel's Message (28:3-4)

"And the angel said to the women, Don't be afraid; for I know that you seek Jesus, who has been crucified. He is not here; for he is risen, even as he said. Come, see the place where he was lying."

The UPDV draws on Matt 28:5-6, revising the opening formula. Matthew's ἀποκριθεὶς δέ (apokritheis de, "answering, he said") is a characteristic Matthean narrative device — D&A cross-reference it as a stock formula with no implied question — and the emphatic ὑμεῖς (hymeis, "you") that contrasts the women with the guards ("Don't be afraid, you") is dropped since there are no guards present in the UPDV's version. The result simplifies to "the angel said to the women," consistent with Mark 16:6's ὁ δέ λέγει αὐταῖς (ho de legei autais, "And he says to them").

The core message — "Don't be afraid; you seek Jesus who has been crucified; he is risen; he is not here; see the place" — closely follows Mark 16:6. Matthew's addition "even as he said" (καθὼς εἶπεν, kathōs eipen) sends the reader back to the passion predictions. D&A note this "proves Jesus a true prophet." Mark 16:6 has simply ἠγέρθη, οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε (ēgerthē, ouk estin hōde, "he is risen, he is not here") — no backward reference to prior predictions. The UPDV retains this Matthean addition, creating a methodological tension: in a chapter that strips the Great Commission, the Galilee instruction, and the guard narrative, this theological insertion by the compiler passes through unchallenged. The retention is similar to the Christological retentions noted in the trial scene of chapter 26, and like those, it represents a departure from strict subtraction that a future revision should address.

The Galilee Instruction — Omitted (Matt 28:7)

"And go quickly, and tell his disciples, He is risen from the dead; and look, he goes before you into Galilee; there you will see him: look, I have told you." Omitted as {Ou}.

D&A confirm that this verse derives from Mark 16:7 with Matthean redactional additions. The core Galilee promise — "he goes before you into Galilee; there you will see him" — comes directly from Mark. Matthew added ταχύ (tachy, "quickly"), which D&A flag as "redactional"; the clause "that he is risen from the dead," employing confessional language not in Mark; and changed Mark's concluding "as he said to you" (referring back to Mark 14:28) to "look, I have told you" (shifting authority from Jesus' prior promise to the angel's own declaration). Matthew also dropped Mark's "and Peter" — D&A explain this corresponds to 28:16-20, "where Peter is just one of a group."

The UPDV's omission of this verse differs from the chapter 27 cases (27:18 and 27:20) where Markan baseline was inadvertently deleted. Here, the UPDV revises Mark 16:7 itself — the standard "He goes before you into Galilee; there you will see him, as he said to you" becomes "Remember what he told you while he was still in Galilee" in the UPDV Mark. The UPDV treats the Galilee appearance prediction as secondary in both Gospels, making the omission internally consistent within the UPDV's own framework.

But this internal consistency comes at a methodological cost. The entire premise of the UPDV Matthew reconstruction is that Mark serves as the objective, stable baseline against which Matthew's additions are identified and stripped. Here, the editors have modified the baseline itself — rewriting Mark 16:7 to remove the Galilee prediction, then deleting Matthew's version of the same prediction. The reconstruction is no longer measuring Matthew against Mark; it is imposing a historical-critical hypothesis onto both texts simultaneously. D&A would classify the Markan core of Mark 16:7 (the Galilee promise, fulfilling Mark 14:28) as traditional, not secondary. The UPDV's revision of its own baseline is the most significant methodological departure in the entire Matthew reconstruction.

This is a consequential editorial decision. France notes that Mark 16:7 is the deliberate fulfillment of Mark 14:28's promise — the two verses create a structural bracket around the passion narrative. Lane reads the Galilee promise as restoration: "the prophecy of failure and denial is to be redressed by the corresponding fulfillment of the promised restoration." Brooks observes that the angel's message in Mark 16:7 essentially says: "the disciples are mentioned because they had fled (14:50); Peter because he had denied Jesus (14:66-72). The angel's word implies that they had been forgiven and would be restored to fellowship with Jesus." By removing this bracket from both Gospels, the UPDV eliminates the explicit geographical anchor for the post-resurrection appearances, leaving the narrative open-ended — the women flee, and the text falls silent.

The Women's Flight (28:5)

"And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear, and fled." The UPDV reverts Matt 28:8 to Mark 16:8.

The canonical Matthew reads: "And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word." The UPDV strips χαρᾶς μεγάλης (charas megalēs, "great joy") and ἔδραμον ἀπαγγεῖλαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ("ran to bring his disciples word"), replacing obedient proclamation with bare flight.

D&A confirm this is thoroughgoing Matthean redaction. In Mark 16:8, the women "went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to anyone; for they were afraid" (ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, ephobounto gar). France calls Mark's ending "extraordinary" — "his wording, οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπαν, could hardly be more definite: the message remained undelivered." Brooks observes that "up to this point there has been no serious problem with Mark's ending" — it is verse 8 that "comes as a shock to modern readers, and there is evidence that it did to ancient ones as well." Matthew's compiler reversed this completely: fearful silence became joyful proclamation. The UPDV reverses the reversal.

This is the UPDV's most defensible revision in the chapter. Lane provides the theological framework: the fear is "an indirect Christological affirmation" — the appropriate human response to divine revelation, "thoroughly consistent with the motifs of astonishment and fear developed throughout the Gospel." The UPDV recovers Mark's original theology: resurrection is first met not with joy but with numinous dread.

Jesus Meets the Women — Omitted (Matt 28:9-10)

"And look, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. Then Jesus says to them, Don't be afraid: go tell my brothers that they depart into Galilee, and there they will see me." Omitted as {Ous}.

D&A disagree with the view that this is purely Matthean composition. They engage with Neirynck, who argues the passage is entirely redactional, but conclude that "it is best to regard Mt 28:9-10 as a shortened version of a story which has been taken up and expanded in Jn 20:11-18." They identify five shared elements between the two accounts: both record the first resurrection appearance, to Mary Magdalene, closely associated with the tomb, involving physical contact, with a commission to tell the "brothers." In their Sources assessment, they state vv. 9-10 "came either from oral tradition or Mark's lost ending."

This is a significant tension. D&A consider the passage traditional — pre-Matthean — not compositional. If it derives from oral tradition or Mark's lost ending, the UPDV's classification as {Ous} (compiler's source material) may be technically accurate in that it is a source the compiler used, but the tradition is older than the compiler and may preserve a genuine early resurrection appearance narrative. The parallel in John 20:11-18 — an independent account with five shared elements but different vocabulary — strengthens the case for a pre-Matthean tradition that the compiler incorporated rather than invented. Strict adherence to the Mark-baseline method occasionally results in the loss of genuinely early traditions that entered Matthew through channels other than Mark, and this passage is the clearest case in the entire reconstruction.

The Guard Bribery — Omitted (Matt 28:11-15)

The entire guard bribery narrative is omitted as {Ous}. D&A identify this as the third panel of the guard narrative cycle (27:62-66 / 28:2-4 / 28:11-15), deriving "from the same source" — pre-Matthean apologetic tradition. The purpose is "transparently apologetical: evidently the Jewish opponents of Matthean Christianity did not dispute the historicity of the empty tomb but rather assigned its cause to theft." D&A note the shared vocabulary with the Judas bribery (26:14-16): "This is the second time the chief priests purchase opposition to Jesus and his cause." The formula "until this day" (μέχρι τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας, mechri tēs sēmeron hēmeras) "posits a substantial passing of time between Jesus' death and our Gospel."

D&A are skeptical of historicity: "Mark, Luke, and John, who know that the rolling stone would be an obstacle for visitors to Jesus' tomb, yet say nothing about the guard." The UPDV treats the entire guard cycle as secondary tradition — a coherent apologetic narrative with no Markan parallel that entered Matthew as a block. The omission is consistent across all three panels.

The Great Commission — Omitted (Matt 28:16-20)

"But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, All authority has been given to me in heaven and on the earth. Go therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatever I commanded you: and look, I am with you always, even to the very end of the age." Omitted as {Ous}.

This is the most consequential omission in all of UPDV Matthew. The Great Commission is not merely a concluding scene — it is the theological climax that reframes everything that preceded it. Its removal requires the fullest possible accounting.

D&A's source analysis is nuanced. They argue strongly for a pre-Matthean traditional core, citing the structural parallels between Matt 28:16-20, Mark 16:14-20 (the longer ending), Luke 24:36-49, and John 20:19-23. These four accounts share what D&A reconstruct as a "primitive commissioning narrative": "Jesus appeared to the eleven. When they saw him they were glad, though some disbelieved. Then he said: preach (the gospel) to all nations. (Baptize) in my name for the forgiveness of sins. (And behold), I will send the Holy Spirit to you."

D&A assign specific elements to tradition and redaction:

Traditional (pre-Matthean): The appearance-commissioning framework itself — shared across all four canonical accounts. "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (28:18b) — D&A cite Schaberg's argument that this Daniel 7 allusion "belongs to pre-Matthean tradition." The doubt motif (28:17b, "but some doubted") — paralleled in Mark 16:14 and Luke 24:37-41. Possibly the trinitarian baptismal formula, which D&A suggest "probably developed out of pre-Matthean reflection upon Daniel 7."

Redactional (Matthean composition): D&A explicitly identify four elements: "the setting on a mountain, the command to go and make disciples, the order to do all that Jesus has commanded, and the assurance of Christ's presence." They conclude: "these four elements are precisely what give the passage its Mosaic aura. So the third stage of the tradition, the redactional stage, reinterpreted the appearance tradition in order to make Jesus like Moses." The mountain recalls Sinai; "observe all things whatever I commanded you" parallels Joshua 1:7 and Exodus 7:2; the promise of presence parallels Deuteronomy 31:23 and Joshua 1:9.

The trinitarian formula deserves special attention. D&A note in their introduction that "the loaded phrase, 'the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,' is, excepting possibly Did. 7 which in any case here depends upon Matthew, without true parallel in first-century Christian literature. It involves a step towards later Trinitarian thought not taken in any other NT writing." Even if the formula is traditional in some form, it represents a theological development beyond what any other New Testament author articulates.

France observes that Matt 28:16-20 may reflect what Mark's lost ending looked like — "It is thus a reasonable guess (it can be no more) that Mark's original ending (planned or executed) would have followed similar lines." If France is right, then the Great Commission is the compiler's reworking of a tradition that may have once stood at the end of Mark itself. The UPDV, by ending at Mark 16:8's fearful flight, makes the opposite bet: that Mark's ending was always abrupt, and that everything the compiler adds after the women's flight is secondary.

The UPDV's classification as {Ous} treats the entire passage as compiler's source material — the compiler inherited a commissioning tradition and shaped it with Mosaic typology, Danielic authority language, and a trinitarian formula that pushes beyond first-century norms. D&A's own analysis supports this layered reading, though they would preserve the traditional core rather than omit the entire passage. The question is whether the compiler's redactional shaping so thoroughly permeates the text that the traditional core cannot be cleanly extracted — and the UPDV's answer, implicitly, is yes.

There is an internal inconsistency in this answer. In 28:2, the UPDV surgically extracts the angel from the middle of the compiler's heavily redacted earthquake-guard-descent text and prints a hybrid verse. If the editors can perform that surgery — separating a functional element (the angel who delivers the message) from its M-tradition staging — why can they not perform analogous surgery on 28:16-20, extracting the multiply-attested traditional core (the appearance, the authority claim, the doubt motif) from the four redactional elements? The UPDV's surgical approach in 28:2 undermines its claim that 28:16-20 is too redactionally saturated to touch. The more candid reading is that the editors chose to end the Gospel at Mark's ending point, and the deletion of the Great Commission follows from that prior commitment rather than from a consistent application of the subtractive method.

What the UPDV Removes from This Chapter

• Matt 28:2 — revised: earthquake and angel descent stripped; angel retained in simplified form. D&A assign the full verse to M guard tradition, but the angel is needed for the message.
• Matt 28:4 (guards' terror): Omitted. M guard tradition — no guards present without 27:62-66.
• Matt 28:6 — "even as he said" retained: A Matthean theological addition (not in Mark 16:6) that passes through unchallenged. A departure from strict subtraction requiring future revision.
• Matt 28:7 (Galilee instruction): Omitted. Derives from Mark 16:7 with Matthean additions. The UPDV revises Mark 16:7 itself, making the omission internally consistent but modifying the Markan baseline — the most significant methodological departure in the reconstruction.
• Matt 28:8 — revised: "fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word" becomes "fear, and fled." Reverts to Mark 16:8. D&A confirm all changes are Matthean redaction.
• Matt 28:9-10 (Jesus meets the women): Omitted. D&A classify as traditional (oral tradition or Mark's lost ending), not Matthean composition. The parallel in John 20:11-18 confirms independent attestation — the clearest case of the method losing genuinely early tradition.
• Matt 28:11-15 (guard bribery): Omitted. Third panel of M guard tradition cycle. No Synoptic parallel.
• Matt 28:16-20 (Great Commission): Omitted. D&A identify a pre-Matthean traditional core overlaid with four Matthean redactional elements. The traditional core (appearance framework, Daniel 7 authority claim, doubt motif) is shared across canonical accounts; the redactional layer (mountain, discipleship command, obedience command, presence promise) creates Mosaic typology. The trinitarian formula is "without true parallel in first-century Christian literature" (D&A). The UPDV treats the redactional saturation as too thorough to permit extraction of the traditional core — but the surgical approach applied to 28:2 (extracting the angel from the guard tradition) undermines this claim.

References

• Davies, W. D. and Dale C. Allison Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. 3 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–1997.
• Lane, William L. The Gospel according to Mark. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.
• Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27–16:20. Word Biblical Commentary 34B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001.
• France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
• Brooks, James A. Mark. New American Commentary 23. Nashville: Broadman, 1991.
• Schaberg, Jane. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit: The Triadic Phrase in Matthew 28:19b. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 61. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982.
• Neirynck, Frans. "Les femmes au tombeau: Étude de la rédaction Matthéenne." New Testament Studies 15 (1969): 168–190.