The Assumption of the Virgin and the resurrections in Matthew after Jesus' Resurrection


Hello everyone,
after the Mass today, I was wondering. The priest said: Mary was allowed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven in body and soul as the first human being, right after Jesus.

Ok, so: I am ok with this and the raptures of the Prophets in the OT, since the “Configuration of Heaven” wasn’t the same before Christ (Hades, Abraham’s bosom, and so on).

But my question is : It is not sure that the Saints in Matthew 27:52-53 rose with glorified bodies, but if so, why is Mary the first one After Jesus to enter Heaven with body and soul, if the Saints in Matthew rose and entered Heaven right after His resurrection?

I hope you follow me, and thank you!




I think the text says they entered Jerusalem. Maybe they died again afterwards and are still waiting for the general resurrection?

Or maybe your priest just didn’t think of them when he made his comment.


Church dogma regarding the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is NOT that Mary was first to enter heaven, body and soul, after Christ. The dogma merely confirms the ancient Tradition that Mary was assumed. it does not concern itself with entrance of others into heaven such as Elijah and Enoch.

Also Catholic exegesis does not offer a definitive understanding of the passage in Matthew 27. It can also be read to mean that the dead corpses or tombs of persons were raised by the earthquake and that people who saw this occur entered Jerusalem to report it (because these tombs were outside Jerusalem’s walls). While many are inclined to view the text as speaking of a literal resurrection, the fact that the verse was composed almost entirely of pronouns without indicators of which proper nouns were being spoken of keeps exegetes from coming to a final agreement as to what is actually meant.


Post script: Matthew 27 could also be written in eschatological/apocalyptical terms when describing the raising of these dead ones. The death and resurrection of Christ ushered in the new creation era in which the resurrection of all the dead was now as sure if it had happened as soon as Christ had died on the Cross. This could also be another possible reading.


It would be correct to say that Mary is the first resurrected person after Jesus. She was also resurrected. This is not taught often in the Catholic Church. It is taught in the Eastern Churches that the Holy Mother of God had experienced the resurrection on the day of her Assumption. There is only two resurrected persons, Jesus and Mary. We need to wait as do the rest for the General Resurrection. That is why Mary appears so youthful in her apparitions for she is revealing her body fully resurrected.


And that is likely what the OP heard from the priest, namely that Mary was the first resurrected human to enter heaven because there is no agreement over the meaning behind Matthew 27:52-53.


The priest did not mentioned that Mary was resurrected only that she entered heaven in body and soul. Perhaps he thought it was assumed you knew she was resurrected. There is no indication that these bodies of the saints were ever resurrected in Matthew 27. What these saints went through is the same as what happened to Lazarus. So God woke them up so that their souls had returned to their bodies for a short time. This is not the resurrection. When speaking on these things it would help the priest to mention the resurrection of Mary more clearly as an event, to use the word resurrection more distinctly when discussing her Assumption. No one has ever been resurrected except for Mary and Jesus.


In the greek text maybe, but in the English version at least, you cannot interpret it that way

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Here it refers twice to the same saints, and appearing in Jerusalem is not the same as reporting the fact in Jerusalem.


Yes Mary entered Heaven body and soul, but also justified, so no hades or Abraham bosom.

But the problem with the teaching of the resurrection of Mary has to do first with knowing whether the “Dormition” was death or not (and I think so), and secondly, assumption doesn’t imply or need resurrection per se; we would need resurrection because of our sins, but Mary being Immaculate, her resurrection is something I am not quite sure about. Her death is only, as for the saints which are promised Heaven, a sleep.


It would be more correct to teach the resurrection of Mary for it implies that she receive all what the Lord would give to her in advance to what we will all receive at the General Resurrection. It would not impress me that Mary was assumed into heaven without her resurrection. If Mary had died like the rest of us can be questionable since Mary had no taint of sin whatsoever personal or original sin. Since she had no sin and the fact that original sin may not have been imparted to her than physical death may not have been imposed on her. Whether she did die like us or had passed over to the next life without dying for me was not as important as the resurrection she had experienced. The resurrection of Mary would only confirm her into the next life body and soul. There is no way Mary would have entered into the next life without the resurrection. I believe this resurrection could be more emphasised at her feast of the Assumption signifying her completeness had finished on that day.

closed #11

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit