Matthew 28:15

Matthew explained that this was the origin of the Jewish explanation of the empty tomb that persisted to the time of his writing, whenever that may have been.

"Justin, Dial[logus]. 108, tells us that this charge was still being actively propagated in the middle of the second century; it was an obvious countermove to Christian claims of Jesus’ resurrection." [Note: France, The Gospel . . ., p. 1093.]

Justin was an early Christian writer.

"The reason for Matthew’s diligence in approaching the resurrection in such an apologetic manner is evident since so much is dependent upon the resurrection of the Messiah. It authenticated His person. To the nation of Israel, His resurrection was the sign of the prophet Jonah (Matthew 12:38-39) attesting the fact that Jesus was the Messiah. The reason Matthew says nothing about the ascension is bound up in this point. If Jesus is the Messiah, then an account of the ascension is both unnecessary and self-evident to the Israelite. He would yet come in clouds of glory. What mattered to Matthew was that Jesus was Israel’s Messiah and the resurrection proved that fact; therefore he goes no further. Second, the resurrection validated Christ’s prophecies concerning His rising from the dead (Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:22-23; Matthew 20:17-19). Finally, the message of the King involving the character of the kingdom, the offer of the kingdom, and the offer’s withdrawal are all involved in the resurrection, for the resurrection verifies the truthfulness of all that Christ ever spoke." [Note: Toussaint, Behold the . . ., pp. 316-17.]