I will raise them on the last day.

[Hiddenthings]

In post #254 I think I quoted the wrong portion of your post. I meant to quote this portion instead, or at least include it---(This immediately removes Janes JW ruling from heaven doctrine!)

That what I was saying sounds like SDA doctrine, this ruling from heaven rather than from earth once Christ returns in the end of this age. SDA doctrine has the entire planet empty during the millennium, and has satan stranded(bound) on the earth all by himself. They tend to think Jeremiah 4:23-27 supports their interpretation.

Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.
27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate ; yet will I not make a full end.

A great section of Scripture this!

These verses contain powerful, striking imagery. The prophet envisions the LORD undoing the order of creation. In Genesis, God brought order out of chaos; here, He is depicted as bringing chaos out of order, reversing the effects of His original creative work.

Of course, it is not literal but beautifully poetic of the coming judgements.

 

[Hiddenthings]

@Davidpt

Here is a restoration prophecy which brings you to the events prior to and leading into the millennium age.

3:14 “Come back to me, my wayward sons,” says the Lord, “for I am your true master. If you do, I will take one of you from each town and two of you from each family group, and I will bring you back to Zion. 3:15 I will give you leaders who will be faithful to me. They will lead you with knowledge and insight. 3:16 In those days, your population will greatly increase in the land. At that time,” says the Lord, “people will no longer talk about having the ark that contains the Lord’s covenant with us. They will not call it to mind, remember it, or miss it. No, that will not be done any more! 3:17 At that time the city of Jerusalem will be called the Lord’s throne. All nations will gather there in Jerusalem to honor the Lord’s name. They will no longer follow the stubborn inclinations of their own evil hearts. 3:18 At that time the nation of Judah and the nation of Israel will be reunited. Together they will come back from a land in the north to the land that I gave to your ancestors as a permanent possession.” Je 3:14–18.

Why won't Israel bring the ark to mind?

 

[Marty fox]

When you say reign, do you mean being reigned over by Christ, or reigning with Christ?

If you mean reigning with Christ, then yes---that reign is directly tied to the binding of satan, which (from a Premil perspective) has not yet happened. That future reign occurs when satan is bound and Christ establishes His millennial reign.

If, however, you mean being reigned over by Christ, then satan doesn’t need to be bound for that to be true. Christ already reigns sovereignly as God, and all believers are under His authority even now.

So, per a Premil view, being reigned over----happens now, because Jesus is God. Reigning with---happens later, when satan is bound and Christ’s kingdom is physically established.

Therefore, your question, "Do we reign because Satan is bound or because Jesus is God?”, depends on which manner you are applying this reigning---reigning with or being reigned over.

Reigning with.

We reign because Jesus is God not because satan is bound thus we still reign after satans thousand year binging ends in revelation 20:7 that why verse 5 states that the rest of the dead come to life after the thousands year reign ends and we see this in verse 12

 

[ewq1938]

Then why do so many people think that the reigning ends in Revelation 20:7?

The reign over the nations with a rod of iron ends before that verse. Next is rebellion and death, then resurrection and a second death.

 

[ewq1938]

If they rose first then they are the fIrst resection

There were resurrections before they did. How are they the first? Just ignore the other ones?

 

[Hiddenthings]

Reigning with.

We reign because Jesus is God

Where are you getting this from?

 

[Marty fox]

No one is denying what Matthew recorded.....I am just giving you the explanation that agrees with the rest of Scripture. No one was resurrected to heaven before Jesus (John 3:13) and yet this is what you and many others are suggesting.

The “first resurrection” takes place at Christ’s coming as judge.....the elect are all with him when this takes place. Every vestige of satan’s rulership will be eliminated including all those who supported the wrong Kingdoms in their daily lives. Being part of the world and it’s corruption is what we were told to be “no part of”. (John 18:36)

You denied it and your explanation didn't agree with the rest of scripture. I also didn't claim that anyone went to heaven before Jesus

 

[Marty fox]

the

Who is “we”?
Unless we understand who the elect are, and what their role is in the Kingdom, nothing will make sense.

Jesus and his elect reign because it is written that it will be so. We don’t choose to be part of the elect because as the name suggests, they are “elected” or “chosen” by God for a specific purpose.

Satan is bound in the abyss so that he cannot interfere with the outcome of the Kingdom’s rule.

In this Jesus is the “holy servant” of his God. (Acts 4:27, 30) He is the one who carries out the solution to all of the devil’s interference....undoing all of it and restoring true worship to “the only true God” that exists. (John 17:3)

The elect are the saints

 

[Marty fox]

When you say reign, do you mean being reigned over by Christ, or reigning with Christ?

If you mean reigning with Christ, then yes---that reign is directly tied to the binding of satan, which (from a Premil perspective) has not yet happened. That future reign occurs when satan is bound and Christ establishes His millennial reign.

If, however, you mean being reigned over by Christ, then satan doesn’t need to be bound for that to be true. Christ already reigns sovereignly as God, and all believers are under His authority even now.

So, per a Premil view, being reigned over----happens now, because Jesus is God. Reigning with---happens later, when satan is bound and Christ’s kingdom is physically established.

Therefore, your question, "Do we reign because Satan is bound or because Jesus is God?”, depends on which manner you are applying this reigning---reigning with or being reigned over.

Reign with Christ

 

[Marty fox]

Where are you getting this from?

Romans 5:17: "For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!".

 

[Marty fox]

There were resurrections before they did. How are they the first? Just ignore the other ones?

Which ones are you meaning?

 

[Davidpt]

Which ones are you meaning?

Maybe he is meaning someone such as Martha's brother, for example? Clearly, he was dead first then he is alive. Can't be raised from the dead without being resurrected. Lazarus was raised from the dead before Christ was raised from the dead, obviously.

Therefore, the first resurrection isn't literally meaning the first, as in chronologically. It is meaning a type of resurrection. It is meaning the resurrection of the just, even if there are numerous stages to it. And that until every single just person has been raised first, in the meantime there are no unjust unsaved people also being raised from the dead.

If you disagree, let's use Christ's resurrection as an example. Name one unjust person who was raised from the dead before Christ was resurrected? Also, name one unjust person who is/was raised from the dead after Christ was raised, but before the dead in Christ rise first in the future still?

Therefore, that makes it the first resurrection regardless how many stages are involved.

Or maybe you think we should call, when the dead in Christ rise first in the future, this is the 2nd resurrection, or the 3rd resurrection, so on and so on? Rather than calling it what it is, the first resurrection, a type of resurrection only involving the just. And that all of the just are raised before any of the unjust are raised. And that in Revelation 20, only 2 resurrection events are in view. The resurrection of the just, thus the first resurrection. The resurrection of the unjust, the 2nd resurrection, thus when when the rest of the dead live again after the thousand years expired.

 

[Aunty Jane]

You denied it and your explanation didn't agree with the rest of scripture. I also didn't claim that anyone went to heaven before Jesus

I denied nothing. It was your suggestion that those in Matthew’s account rose before Jesus did. The earthquake occurred at the moment of his death and this is when incident happened when the “bodies” of the saints were tipped from their graves by the earthquake. Those who witnessed this reported it after Jesus was resurrected.
If the first resurrection had taken place, why was such a monumental event only mentioned in passing by Matthew?

To imply that the first resurrection took place at the moment of Jesus death does not fit in with Scripture because as John 3:13 states, no one had gone to heaven before Jesus. So where were these saints before then? The Jews believed that all would “sleep” in death until Messiah’s reign, when they would be raised. Which is what Paul confirmed. (1 Thess 4:13, 15-16) They would be raised when Christ returned to call them from their graves, and he says that those who died after Jesus, would not be raised before the ones alive at his return. Everything has its timeframe.

Even Job spoke of the resurrection.....in his suffering Job cried out to God....
Job 14:13-17 CJB....
“I wish you would hide me in Sh’ol, conceal me until your anger has passed, then fix a time and remember me! If a man dies, will he live again? I will wait all the days of my life for my change to come. You will call, and I will answer you; you will long to see what you made again. Whereas now you count each step of mine, then you will not keep watch for my sin. You will seal up my crime in a bag and cover over my iniquity.”

Sheol to Jews, was the grave....a place of concealment....but they also knew that a resurrection was promised....a time when sin would be covered over....paid for by the one God sent to die in our place, giving us the hope of restoration....of life without sin in paradise.

Jews had no notion of going to heaven or hell, because their Scripture never mentioned them as destinations for humans. There was just life or death......the first death was inherited from Adam, and the second death, (“Gehenna”) was a symbol of unending death, which meant no resurrection. Everlasting life was contrasted with everlasting death. So logical, but confused by one false doctrine.

So much of Christendom’s beliefs hinge on one doctrine that strangely finds a place in all false worship...immortality of the soul.
The Jews did not believe in an immediate life after death....they were taught that Sheol was a place of rest....a place of silence. (Eccl 9:5, 10; Psalm 115:17) A virtual state of suspended animation.

The problem associated with immortal souls is that you have to have somewhere for these conscious yet invisible souls to go.....and yet the word “soul” in Hebrew means a living, breathing earthbound creature. That means that there are no “souls” in heaven.

In order to live where God lives, one must be a spirit....flesh and blood cannot go there......souls are not spirits. So when the soul dies, there is a period of sleep, after which a return to life was promised. Those chosen to rule with Christ in heaven must therefore be “born again” as spirits in order to go where Jesus went to “prepare a place” for them in his Father’s house.

Christendom has managed to skew so many Bible teachings because it is not the church that Jesus started...it is a fractured counterfeit that is simply lost in its own confusion, wondering why nothing adds up.
These forums are proof of that.

The elect are the saints

Yes they are, but are all Christians “elected”....what are these “chosen ones”, chosen for? (Rev 20:6)

If they are to experience the “first resurrection”, who is it that Jesus raises in the resurrection that was to come later? (John 5:28-29) If there is a “first resurrection” then logically another was to follow. How are they different?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

People get the timing of the rapture wrong and it is a serious error.
People also get the timing of the thousand years wrong (and making it longer than it is) and that is just as serious of an error, actually moreso

So, how about you stop getting the timing of the thousand years wrong and start accepting the truth. Scripture is very clear that Jesus began to reign long ago after His resurrection (Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:19-23). That should be the starting point for understanding what Revelation 20 is about since it obviously relates to the reign of Christ.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Since this happened at the moment Jesus died, when the earthquake struck as he passed away, that means that these were resurrected before Jesus was. He was not resurrected for three days.

The phrasing in this is uncertain and for something as monumental as this suggests, if you are correct in your assumption, why didn’t the other gospels record it? Why only Matthew?

And Matthew does not say that “the holy ones” were “raised up.”.....he says that their “bodies” were. Evidently, the earthquake was so powerful that the tombs were broken open and corpses were thrown out of them.
It could well be that those who witnessed these bodies being unearthed in the earthquake, (“they”) went into Jerusalem to report it after Jesus was resurrected.

We can’t take these things at face value, because they have been subliminally altered by those who believe a lie. Paul clearly tells us that the “first resurrection” doesn’t take place until Christ’s return....so it couldn’t have happened back then.

To deny what is recorded in Matthew 27:52-53 happened at all is foolishness. There is no indication whatsoever that it should not be taken literally as a real event that happened. But, what you don't understand is that they, like Lazarus and a few others who had previously been resurrected, died again after that. In contrast to that, the bodily resurrection that will occur when Christ returns will be unto bodily immortality.

Also, the bodily resurrection that will occur at Christ's return is not the first resurrection, according to scripture. Scripture indicates that Christ's resurrection itself was the first resurrection. That needs to be taken into consideration when interpreting Revelation 20.

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

The above verse very clearly teaches that Christ's resurrection itself was the first resurrection. And Paul indicated that it was the first resurrection in order, with the context being in relation to His resurrection being the first unto bodily immortality.

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Paul taught that the first resurrection was Christ's resurrection, so the mass bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ at His return is the second resurrection, not the first.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I can’t speak for every Premil out there, but here’s how I see it.

No one is reigning with Christ a thousand years until the thousand years actually begin. And once those thousand years are over, that specific reign is over too. There’s a big difference between being reigned over by Christ and reigning with Christ a thousand years. The second one clearly describes a time period----it has a starting point and an ending point, just like Revelation 20 lays out.

So it doesn’t really make sense to say someone is reigning with Christ a thousand years before the thousand years even start, or after they’ve finished. That reign belongs to that specific era---the millennium---which begins after Satan is bound and Christ’s kingdom is established on earth.

I understand that the thousand years has a beginning and an end and don't deny that. But, do you believe that Christ no longer reigns after the thousand years and that no one reigns with Him any longer after that? Scripture teaches that He will reign forever (Isaiah 9:6-7).

Something else that might be relevant here. Since, in my mind there is a difference between being reigned over and reigning with. The following parable proves that Christ reigns over someone while He is away, not someone reigns with Christ while He is away.

Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.


There has to be an opposite. The opposite is this. Those of His who are not His enemies allowed Him to reign over them while He is away. Once again, reigning over someone and reigning with someone couldn't possibly mean the same thing. At least I don't think so.

Are you trying to say that Christ reigns over us now, but will reign with us after He returns? What about the scriptures which say that we ARE a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9) and that we have been MADE kings and priests (Rev 1:5-6)?

----------------------------------

Pertaining to my point in the end of my post above regarding being reigned over vs reigning with, I then asked Chatgpt the following. BTW, above the dotted line above, none of that had anything to do with me conversing with Chatgpt.
------------------

Me:
Is it a valid argument in general, that there is a difference between being reigned over and reigning with? A thousand years aside. Let's just take that out of the equation for a moment.
-------------------

Chatgpt:
Yes, it’s a valid argument to point out that there’s a significant difference between *being reigned over* and *reigning with*, and this distinction can apply both biblically and logically — whether or not we’re talking about the thousand-year period in Revelation.

### **1. Conceptual Difference**

* **Being reigned over** means being under the authority or sovereignty of someone. This is a *passive* position where you submit to the ruler’s authority, but you’re not necessarily an active participant in the ruling. This is the idea of *subjecthood*.

* **Example:** A king reigns over his people, and the people follow his laws. They don’t participate in the ruling process — they simply submit to it.
* In a biblical sense, this could describe the relationship between Christ and the world today (e.g., God reigns over creation, people are subject to His rule even if they don’t acknowledge it).

* **Reigning with** someone, on the other hand, implies sharing in their authority and ruling alongside them. This is an *active* position where you participate in decision-making or the exercise of power. It's more than being a subject; it’s being a co-ruler.

* **Example:** A monarch might have co-regents or trusted officials who share in ruling the kingdom. The co-regents would have real authority, not just as subjects, but as fellow rulers.
* Biblically, this can refer to the idea that believers will share in Christ’s rule in the future (Revelation 20:4-6), where the saints are actively reigning with Him in His Kingdom.

### **2. Biblical Precedents for Both**

* **Being Reigned Over:**

* **Psalm 103:19** – "The LORD has established his throne in heaven, and his kingdom rules over all." This is a clear example of God's sovereignty over all creation. We’re all under His rule.
* **1 Corinthians 15:24** – "Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power." This shows Christ reigning over all until the final victory, where all things are subjected to Him.
* **Reigning With:**

* **2 Timothy 2:12** – "If we endure, we will also reign with him." This suggests that believers, as co-heirs with Christ, will actively participate in His reign. This is more than passive subjection — it’s a shared reign.
* **Revelation 20:4-6** – "They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years." This is clearly a *shared* reign, not just Christ reigning over others.

### **3. Logical Difference**

Even outside of a biblical context, these terms have logical distinctions:

* To be reigned over implies authority is exercised *over* you.
* To reign with someone implies you have authority *with* them — you participate in governance.

In a political sense, if someone says, “I reign with the king,” they’re implying a position of shared power. If they say, “I am reigned over by the king,” they’re simply acknowledging their subordination.

### **4. Theological Implications**

* **The distinction matters** in theological debates about the nature of Christ’s current reign and the future kingdom. Is Christ’s reign now a reign *over* the world, or is He currently reigning *with* His saints?

* **Amillennialists** often see the present reign of Christ as being over all creation through His sovereignty, where believers are subjects in His kingdom, but not actively ruling alongside Him yet.
* **Premillennialists**, on the other hand, interpret the reign with Christ in Revelation as a future, active role where believers will share in His authority during the millennial kingdom.

### **Conclusion**

So yes, the distinction between being reigned over and reigning with is absolutely valid. It’s not just a linguistic nuance but a meaningful theological distinction that shapes how different Christian traditions understand the nature of Christ’s rule, the believer's role, and the future hope of the kingdom. Even setting aside the thousand-year debate, the *active* vs. *passive* role in reigning with Christ vs. being reigned over has significant implications for how we understand our relationship to Christ both now and in the future.

Jesus both reigns over us in terms of having authority over us as our Master and King and also reigns with us because, as scripture says, we are a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9) and have been made kings and priest unto God the Father and the Son (Revelation 1:5-6). So, the idea that He reigns over us now and will reign with us when He returns makes no sense. There's no reason why He can't both reign over us and with us at the same time.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Romans 5:17: "For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!".

One man.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Maybe he is meaning someone such as Martha's brother, for example? Clearly, he was dead first then he is alive. Can't be raised from the dead without being resurrected. Lazarus was raised from the dead before Christ was raised from the dead, obviously.

Therefore, the first resurrection isn't literally meaning the first, as in chronologically.

Not the literally first resurrection of any kind, but it is not called the first resurrection for nothing. In what sense is it the first resurrection in your view?

It is meaning a type of resurrection.

Yes, but it is the first of that type. How does that fit your Premil doctrine? How would the mass bodily resurrection that will occur when Jesus returns be the first of its type?

It is meaning the resurrection of the just, even if there are numerous stages to it. And that until every single just person has been raised first, in the meantime there are no unjust unsaved people also being raised from the dead.

How about we go by how scripture itself defines the first resurrection? The phrase "the first resurrection" is translated from the Greek words protos (first) anastasis (resurrection). Those words are used together in only one other verse in scripture besides in Revelation 20.

Acts 26:23 that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first (protos) to rise (anastasis) from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.

Or maybe you think we should call, when the dead in Christ rise first in the future, this is the 2nd resurrection, or the 3rd resurrection, so on and so on?

When it talks about the dead in Christ rising first it has nothing to do with the first resurrection or the order of resurrections, it has to do with the fact that after Jesus descends from heaven, what will happen first is that the dead in Christ will be bodily resurrected and then after that they, along with those who are alive and remain, will be caught up together to meet the Lord in the air. In 1 Thessalonians 4:15 Paul made it clear that those who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord "will by no means precede those who are asleep", so that's why the dead in Christ have to be resurrected first before they are caught up together with those who are alive and remain at the same time.

Rather than calling it what it is, the first resurrection, a type of resurrection only involving the just.

By making it only a type of resurrection it no longer makes sense to call it the first resurrection. It seems like you're trying to invent a way to get out of explaining in what sense is it the first resurrection. But, it is the first resurrection of some type, which implies a second resurrection of the same type. In 1 Corinthians 15:22-23 Paul talks about Christ's resurrection itself as being the first unto bodily immortality and then when He comes again those who belong to Him will also be resurrected unto bodily immortality. So, Christ's resurrection itself was the first resurrection of its type, which was unto bodily immortality.

As it relates to the dead in Christ rising first, I asked your buddy ChatGPT what that means.

Question for ChatGPT:

When Paul refers to the dead in Christ rising first in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 does that have anything to do with the order of resurrections or does it have to do with the dead in Christ rising first so that they can then be caught up together with those who are alive and remain to meet the Lord in the air?

ChatGPT Response:

Excellent distinction — and you’re reading 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17 very carefully, which is exactly what’s needed here.

Let’s look at this closely in context, because what Paul means by “the dead in Christ will rise first” can be understood in two ways — and one of them fits the immediate passage much better.

---

Text and Flow of Thought​

“For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God.
And the dead in Christ will rise first.
Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air...”
— 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17

Paul’s purpose here is pastoral: to comfort believers who were worried that Christians who had already died would somehow miss out on Christ’s coming (see v.13: “that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope”).


So the primary contrast in Paul’s mind is not between different orders of resurrection across ages or dispensations, but between two groups of believers:

1. Those who have died (“the dead in Christ”)
2. Those who are alive and remain at Christ’s return

---

“The dead in Christ will rise first” — what does “first” mean?​

The word first (prōton in Greek) in this context refers to sequence within a single event, not to a theological “first resurrection” in an eschatological order.

Paul’s point is that when Christ comes:

1. The dead in Christ will be raised (bodily resurrection).
2. Then the living believers will be caught up (raptured).
3. Together they will meet the Lord in the air.

The “first” thus ensures that the dead are not left behind or disadvantaged; they are raised first, so that both groups are united and ascend together to meet the Lord.

It’s a way of saying: “Don’t worry — those who have died in Christ won’t miss the event. In fact, they will be raised first, so we can all be caught up together.”

---

So to your question:​

“Does ‘the dead in Christ rise first’ have to do with the order of resurrections (like Revelation 20), or with the order of events at Christ’s coming?”

Answer:
In 1 Thessalonians 4:16, “rise first” refers not to a distinct order of resurrections across redemptive history, but to the sequence within the single event of Christ’s coming — resurrection first, then the rapture of the living, so that all believers are joined together to meet the Lord.

 

[Marty fox]

To deny what is recorded in Matthew 27:52-53 happened at all is foolishness. There is no indication whatsoever that it should not be taken literally as a real event that happened. But, what you don't understand is that they, like Lazarus and a few others who had previously been resurrected, died again after that. In contrast to that, the bodily resurrection that will occur when Christ returns will be unto bodily immortality.

Also, the bodily resurrection that will occur at Christ's return is not the first resurrection, according to scripture. Scripture indicates that Christ's resurrection itself was the first resurrection. That needs to be taken into consideration when interpreting Revelation 20.

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

The above verse very clearly teaches that Christ's resurrection itself was the first resurrection. And Paul indicated that it was the first resurrection in order, with the context being in relation to His resurrection being the first unto bodily immortality.

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Paul taught that the first resurrection was Christ's resurrection, so the mass bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ at His return is the second resurrection, not the first.

Yes amen

 

[Marty fox]

I denied nothing. It was your suggestion that those in Matthew’s account rose before Jesus did. The earthquake occurred at the moment of his death and this is when incident happened when the “bodies” of the saints were tipped from their graves by the earthquake. Those who witnessed this reported it after Jesus was resurrected.
If the first resurrection had taken place, why was such a monumental event only mentioned in passing by Matthew?

To imply that the first resurrection took place at the moment of Jesus death does not fit in with Scripture because as John 3:13 states, no one had gone to heaven before Jesus. So where were these saints before then? The Jews believed that all would “sleep” in death until Messiah’s reign, when they would be raised. Which is what Paul confirmed. (1 Thess 4:13, 15-16) They would be raised when Christ returned to call them from their graves, and he says that those who died after Jesus, would not be raised before the ones alive at his return. Everything has its timeframe.

Even Job spoke of the resurrection.....in his suffering Job cried out to God....
Job 14:13-17 CJB....
“I wish you would hide me in Sh’ol, conceal me until your anger has passed, then fix a time and remember me! If a man dies, will he live again? I will wait all the days of my life for my change to come. You will call, and I will answer you; you will long to see what you made again. Whereas now you count each step of mine, then you will not keep watch for my sin. You will seal up my crime in a bag and cover over my iniquity.”

Sheol to Jews, was the grave....a place of concealment....but they also knew that a resurrection was promised....a time when sin would be covered over....paid for by the one God sent to die in our place, giving us the hope of restoration....of life without sin in paradise.

Jews had no notion of going to heaven or hell, because their Scripture never mentioned them as destinations for humans. There was just life or death......the first death was inherited from Adam, and the second death, (“Gehenna”) was a symbol of unending death, which meant no resurrection. Everlasting life was contrasted with everlasting death. So logical, but confused by one false doctrine.

So much of Christendom’s beliefs hinge on one doctrine that strangely finds a place in all false worship...immortality of the soul.
The Jews did not believe in an immediate life after death....they were taught that Sheol was a place of rest....a place of silence. (Eccl 9:5, 10; Psalm 115:17) A virtual state of suspended animation.

The problem associated with immortal souls is that you have to have somewhere for these conscious yet invisible souls to go.....and yet the word “soul” in Hebrew means a living, breathing earthbound creature. That means that there are no “souls” in heaven.

In order to live where God lives, one must be a spirit....flesh and blood cannot go there......souls are not spirits. So when the soul dies, there is a period of sleep, after which a return to life was promised. Those chosen to rule with Christ in heaven must therefore be “born again” as spirits in order to go where Jesus went to “prepare a place” for them in his Father’s house.

Christendom has managed to skew so many Bible teachings because it is not the church that Jesus started...it is a fractured counterfeit that is simply lost in its own confusion, wondering why nothing adds up.
These forums are proof of that.

Yes they are, but are all Christians “elected”....what are these “chosen ones”, chosen for? (Rev 20:6)

If they are to experience the “first resurrection”, who is it that Jesus raises in the resurrection that was to come later? (John 5:28-29) If there is a “first resurrection” then logically another was to follow. How are they different?

This is what the verse says for clarification do you agree with it or not?

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.