EXPLAIN THIS: Who Got His Body?
That Jesus was crucified dead and then buried in a tomb the New Testament describes as that of Joseph of Arithamea is not disputed by the vast majority of scholars. That His body disappeared is also not disputed, so the question then is what happened to it?
Was Jesus resurrected, as His disciples claimed? Or did somebody — His disciples, His enemies or grave robbers — steal His dead body and take it away? To answer these questions, it is necessary to explain two key facts: How He was buried and the extremely low possibility that His body could be stolen and hidden.
Let’s look at the first key: Christian apologists Josh McDowell and his son, Sean, note in Chapter 10 of their “Evidence That Demands A Verdict” that there were three types of rock-cut tombs in the Jerusalem region of Jesus’ day, Kokim tunnels, Acrosolia semi-circular niches and rectangular rooms with three benches.
“Evidence That Demands A Verdict” is available from amazon.com
Either of the latter two types match the Gospels’ description of the tomb in which Jesus was buried. Large stones were used to seal both types of burial places and keep animals out of them.
The sealing stones are the important element of this first key question. McDowell quotes archeologist Amos Kloner who notes that large stones of either circular or rectangular shapes were used to seal the entrance.
While round stones were rare, the Gospels clearly describe such a seal being used for Jesus’ tomb. The stone that sealed Jesus’ tomb likely weighed approximately 450 pounds. Note, too, that His body was prepared with an estimated 75-100 pounds of spices and preservatives and wrapped in a burial linen or shroud.
So, Jesus’ body was wrapped and covered, and placed behind a heavy rock on which, it should be further noted, was placed a Roman seal that would have to be broken in order to re-open the tomb.
The guard at the tomb was most likely a Kustodia, an elite unit of the Roman Legion, the most powerful military force on the Earth at the time. If instead the tomb was guarded by a unit of the Jewish Temple Guards, they, too, were specially trained for lethal defense.
An Elite Roman Legion Unit:
Second key fact: The odds are strongly against His body being stolen. Consider the three groups with possible motives to do so. When the disciples proclaimed His Resurrection, Jesus’ enemies, the Romans and the Jews, if they had stolen it, would certainly have rolled His rotting corpse down Jerusalem’s Main Street. That would have killed Christianity at the outset.
What about grave robbers? Jesus was an itinerant preacher during the final three years of His life and before that a carpenter in a small town. Nobody would expect Him to be buried with great riches to steal.
And His disciples? None of them were known to have any military training, and even if they did, they were scattered and in hiding in the days immediately after Jesus’ burial. Peter, the only disciple ever mentioned using a weapon, had famously denied even knowing Jesus three times.
Given these facts, it’s all but impossible to think the disciples would have somehow rallied themselves and found the courage to confront the tomb guards, much less had the skills and weapons to overcome them.
Conclusion: The most reasonable explanation for the empty tomb of Jesus is that He was indeed resurrected from the dead, just as He prophesied would happen before going to the cross. Now, what will you do with these facts?
There is a contradicting in your post. You say, without evidence, that his body was buried with 75-100 pounds of spice. Then you say that there would be nothing to steal. What was the value of that much spice back then? A fortune. Enough to inspire the guards to steal it. Suggest argument is stronger without the addition of the spice which is, as far as I know, not Biblical, since Jesus was buried in a hurry, before the Sabbath sun could set.
Thanks, Gary, I appreciate the comment. John 19:39-40 tells us: “Nicodemus (who had previously come to Him at night) also came, bringing a mixture of of about 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes. Then they took Jesus’ body and wrapped it in linen cloths with the aromatic spices, according to the burial customs of the Jews.” Your question about the potential value of the spices is an interesting one, but my guess (and it is only that) is that once applied to the linens and wrapped around the body, their usefulness with a second body would be compromised. If the motive was simply to get ahold of valuable spices, why take the whole body? Why leave the grave unsealed, thus implicating themselves as having failed their duty, the penalty for which was not fun. Your thoughts in response?
John 19:39.
The spice would definitely couldn’t be used by any Jew. Touching dead bodies was something that made you unclean:
If you touch a dead body, you will be unclean for seven days. 12 But if you wash with the water mixed with the cow’s ashes on the third day and again on the seventh day, you will be clean and acceptable for worship. You must wash yourself on those days; if you don’t, you will remain unclean. 13 Suppose you touch a dead body, but refuse to be made clean by washing with the water mixed with ashes. You will be guilty of making my sacred tent unclean and will no longer belong to the people of Israel. Number 19:11
Thanks, Mark for the provocative piece.
This is weak. The guards could not be bribed? Treating antique testimony as anything but apocrypha is pointless. You either believe your religion or you don’t. Bogus “proofs” stitched together from creaky claims make your argument seem weaker, not stronger.
How do you decide whether to believe ancient testimony A but not ancient testimony B?
Given the value of spices, the spice mixture for placing on the dead was perhaps about 3- 5% spices and 95-97% inert material. The spices would be to counter the odor of decomposition and the inert material would be to absorb the odor.
As far as guards go, they could probably be bribed and they might not be as diligent as Mark thinks.
Of course guards can sometimes be bribed, but where is the evidence that these particular guards were?
While I appreciate the intent of this kind of apologetic, I think that it has limited usefulness. Nobody that I know has ever come to a saving faith because it was the “most reasonable” explanation. So this kind of apologetic is really only useful in showing that Christianity is not irrational.
As a Lutheran, I believe that we are saved by grace, not by rational examination of the evidence. I am also a physicist, which means that rational examination of evidence is indeed important to me. I just don’t believe it is the path to faith. It does affect the details of my faith; for example, I think young-Earth creationism is absurd. But that kind of detail is not a central concern, whereas the resurrection is. God chose not to give us undeniable evidence of the resurrection, and no matter how hard you try to pretend it exists, it just doesn’t. I think it is much more productive to think about why we (21st century people) were not given any such indisputable evidence.
And your take on I Peter 3:15 is? I agree that evidential apologetics has “limited usefulness,” but I would suggest you are undervaluing it, as well as putting forth a flawed equivalence in equating “rational explanation” with the operation of divine grace.
I Peter 3:15 does not mean that you must present formal arguments for the faith. I don’t think that this kind of apologetic is “presenting a defense” in any case. It can be useful to show that faith is not irrational, especially in today’s world, and that seems more in line with what in in I Peter. And I think something was misunderstood: in no way did I equate “rational explanation” with the operation of divine grace; indeed, my exact point is that they are not the same thing!
One use for this type of apologetics is to strip away the “easy” answers and then leave you to answer that question that Jesus put to his apostles “Who do you say that I am.” I think apologetics like this help to cut through the clutter and invite people to consider Jesus’s question.
You are correct that the apologetic argument will not produce faith. But it can put people on the road toward faith.
Well said, sir, and thanks.
“That Jesus was crucified dead and then buried in a tomb the New Testament describes as that of Joseph of Arithamea is not disputed by the vast majority of scholars. That His [sic] body disappeared is also not disputed, so the question then is what happened to it?”
No. That is not then the question, – unless you’re the type that believes something must true if the “vast majority’ of scholars does not dispute it. The majority of scholars did not dispute that the Wuhan virus – pardon me, Covid 19 – originated in nature from bats, via pangolins or something, and that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had nothing to do with it. Until a few days ago, that is. Now, suddenly, they all seem to be making room in their heads for doubt.
Which account that “the New Testament describes” does this vast majority of scholars not dispute? Do most scholars agree it is undisputed that the dead bodies of Jerusalem arose from their tombs and walked around town for awhile after Jesus gave up the ghost? Who would leave that little detail out of an account of the event? But some of these “divinely inspired” histories did just that.
Since the accounts are so irreconcilably inconsistent, most of them must be wrong. That does not imply that one of them must be accurate.
Indeed, it suggests to those who feel no need to believe at least one of them that all of them are probably wrong. Throughout the Levant in ancient times, myths concerning dying and rising gods continuously appeared. Everyone today, even including the vast majority of scholars, now finds all of these incredible tales unworthy of belief, with the possible of one incredible tale which has stubbornly hung on.
So, the first question, then, was whether there was a body that disappeared in the first place. Maybe that story is just a myth, too.
Two points: First, when multiple witnesses provide the exact same account, you know they collaborated beforehand to “get their stories straight.” The fact some of the Gospels note details A, B, C and D, but others of the Gospels neglect D, doesn’t mean they’re all wrong, it simply indicates they chose to emphasize different elements of the same event. Second, the claim Jesus was just another among many ancient claimants to being resurrected simply isn’t supported by the facts. None of the pagan deities claimed to have created the universe from nothing, to be the sacrificial lamb to make salvation possible for all who believe and to be coming back to judge the quick and the dead, when every knee shall bow and every tonque confess that Jesus is Lord.
Why would anyone stealing the body unwrap the grave cloth, fold it neatly and leave it behind? Anyone committing a theft would take the body and run… This was clearly not the act of a thief.
Consider studying, if you will, http://www.inthatdayteachings.com ? A sword like no other?
Start with Book #3.
Mark, you’re referencing one of my favorite books. 😉
However, I’ve always had a difference of opinion on the “Jesus as poor” concept. It’s not fundamental to the proof, but the concept that Jesus – and his family – was poor is scripturally unsound. If we hold that scripture is inerrant, then accordingly, he and his family received an immense amount of wealth with the gifts of the Magi.
OTOH, it’s not that important of a point. Even if grave robbers knew who Jesus was AND knew his family had means, the potential for grave robbers overcoming a Roman guard is slim at best – and had they done so, the Roman guard would have all been dead rather than alive.
And I’ll politely disagree with fizzymagic on “Nobody that I know has ever come to a saving faith because it was the “most reasonable” explanation.” McDowell’s personal testimony pretty clearly indicates that was central to his acceptance of Christ.
Dr. Gary Habermas gives some very interesting arguments for the resurrection, and support for them, in this lecture on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M&t=877s
1) why were there guards at the tomb? did all crucified criminals get guards at their tombs? did the other 2 crucified with Jesus get guarded tombs too?
2) to Jim; it turns out the experts signing the letter proclaiming zoological roots of the virus were badly compromised by either being directly involved with the NIH or receiving funding from the NIH.