Where Was Jesus Buried? | March 30, 2012 | Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly | PBS Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly Where Was Jesus Buried? March 30, 2012 KIM LAWTON, correspondent: During Holy Week, Christians remember the familiar story of Jesus’s death and resurrection. But exactly where does that story take place? The Bible offers only a few clues. REV. MARK MOROZOWICH (Catholic University of America): The Gospels weren’t really written to record a history. They were written to provide a testimony of faith. LAWTON: According to the New Testament, Jesus was crucified at a spot outside Jerusalem called Golgotha, which in Aramaic means “place of the skull.” The Latin word for skull is calvaria, and in English many Christians refer to the site of the crucifixion as Calvary. The Gospel of John says there was a garden at Golgotha, and a tomb which had never been used. Since the tomb was nearby, John says, that’s where Jesus’s body was placed. The Gospel writers say the tomb was owned by a prominent rich man, Joseph of Arimathea.

They describe it as cut out of rock, with a large stone that could be rolled in front of the entrance. Father Mark Morozowich is acting dean of the School of Theology and Religious Studies at the Catholic University of America. MOROZOWICH: At the time of Jesus, when he was crucified, he was not really a significant feature in Israel. I mean, certainly there was jealousy, certainly he had his followers. But there was no church that was built immediately upon his death or to mark his resurrection. LAWTON: In the fourth century, as Emperor Constantine was consolidating the Roman Empire under Christianity, his mother, St. Helena, traveled to Jerusalem. According to tradition, she discovered relics of the cross upon which Jesus had been crucified. The spot had been venerated by early Christians, and she concluded it was Golgotha. Constantine ordered the construction of a basilica, which became known as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. MOROZOWICH: Now people throughout history have debated was it really there, or was it here?

Traditionally in that fourth century time that was so amazing, they found this rock and this tomb not far from one another as we see even today in the church you know they’re just a short distance from one another. LAWTON: Over the centuries, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed, rebuilt and renovated several times. There have been numerous power struggles over who should control it, and even today, sometimes violent squabbles can break out among the several Christian denominations that share jurisdiction. But it is considered one of the holiest sites in Christianity, a massive place of pilgrimage and intense spiritual devotion. At the entrance, visitors can kiss the Stone of Unction which, according to tradition, marks the place where Jesus’ body was washed for burial. The dark chapel commemorating the crucifixion is in one upper corner, and the place marking the tomb on the other side. MOROZOWICH: What more of a moving place to walk in Jerusalem, the place of the crucifixion, to meditate at Golgotha where Jesus Christ died, the place where he rose from the tomb. So they are very beautiful and very moving moments when a person can have a very deep relationship with God.

LAWTON: During Holy Week in particular, the Holy Sepulchre is the center for special devotions, such as the Holy Fire ritual, where flames from inside the tomb area are passed among the candles of worshippers. MOROZOWICH: The bishop brings out the light from the tomb and this illuminates and plays on this whole sense of the light of the world coming forth again. LAWTON: But despite the history and devotion, some question whether that indeed is the true spot. Some Christians, including many Protestants, believe Jesus could have been crucified and buried at a different place in Jerusalem known as the Garden Tomb. STEVE BRIDGE (Deputy Director, The Garden Tomb): The tomb was discovered in 1867. For hundreds of years before that it had lain buried under rock and rubble and earth and things had grown on top of it. LAWTON: Steve Bridge is deputy director at the Garden Tomb, which is located just outside the Old City’s Damascus Gate. He says this site was promoted in the late nineteenth century by British General Charles Gordon, who argued that the hillside with the features of a human skull could be actual crucifixion site.

BRIDGE: When we’re looking, now we’re looking side on, and you can see maybe what looks like the two eye-sockets there on the rock face. The Bible tells us Jesus was crucified outside the city walls at a place called Golgotha, which simply means the skull, and so many people believe that Skull Hill is Golgotha, the place of the skull where Jesus died. LAWTON: This Skull Hill looms over an ancient garden, with cisterns and a wine press, which could indicate that it was owned by a wealthy person. In the garden was a tomb, hewn from the rock. BRIDGE: The tomb itself is at least two-thousand years old. Many date it as older than that. But it’s certainly not less than 2,000 years old. It’s a Jewish tomb, it’s definitely a rolling stone tomb. That means the entrance would be sealed by rolling a large stone across. LAWTON: Inside the tomb is a 1300-year-old marking of a cross with the Byzantine words “Jesus Christ, the Beginning and the End.” BRIDGE: So there’s burial space for at least two bodies, probably more.

That, again, matches the bible description. It was a family tomb that Joseph had built for himself and his family. LAWTON: Bridge says Christians are deeply moved by this visual image of where Jesus may have been placed after he was taken down from the cross. BRIDGE: On that day, as far as people were concerned, that was the end of the story, that was the end of one that they had hoped would be the Messiah, because a dead Messiah is no good. But three days later, we believe God raised Jesus to life and that was the start of what we now call Christianity of course. LAWTON: According to Bridge, the Garden Tomb is not trying to set up a competition with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. BRIDGE: There’s no doubt that historically, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, has the evidence on its side, and we certainly wouldn’t want to do or say anything that would suggest that we think they’re wrong about the site or that we think that we’re right. What we say we have here is something that matches the Bible description. LAWTON: And Bridge says, for him, it doesn’t ultimately matter where the actual place is.

BRIDGE: That’s very secondary to Jesus himself, who we believe he is, and why he died, and, you know, on that score us and the Holy Sepulchre would be exactly the same, telling the same story but on a different site. LAWTON: Father Morozowich agrees that, especially at Easter time, Christians should focus more on what Jesus did, rather than on where he may have done it. MOROZOWICH: Where he walked is very, very important. At the same time though, we know that Jesus is more than this historical figure that walked the earth, and in his resurrection, he transcends all of that. So he is as real and present in Mishawaka and in Washington, DC as he is in Jerusalem. LAWTON: I’m Kim Lawton reporting.

Related Reading THE SEPULCHRE OF CHRIST AND THE MEDIEVAL WEST by Colin Morris THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE by Martin Biddle SAVING THE HOLY SEPULCHRE: HOW RIVAL CHRISTIANS CAME TOGETHER TO RESCUE THEIR HOLIST SHRINCE by Raymond Cohen Related Links The Historicity of the Empty Tomb Evaluated: Roman Crucifixion and Jewish Burial Home » Library » Modern » Peter Kirby » Tomb » Roman Crucifixion and Jewish Burial This belongs to the improbability section properly, but I have set it apart. Unless the tomb burial by Joseph of Arimathea can be shown to be an accurate account (and arguments to that effect will be considered), then to be able to reconstruct the most likely history of what happened to the body of Jesus after the crucifixion will require some general background on the methods and purpose of Roman crucifixion and Jewish burial in the ancient world. Gerard Sloyan indicates the brutality that crucifixion entails: Seneca (d.

65 C.E.) refers to a variety of postures and different kinds of tortures on crosses: some victims are thrust head downward, others have a stake impale their genitals (obscena), still others have their arms outstretched on a crossbeam. The Jewish historian Josephus, writing of the Jewish War of the late 60s, is explicit about Jews captured by the Romans who were first flogged, tortured before they died, and then crucified before the city wall. The pity he reports that Titus, father of Josephus's imperial patron Vespasian, felt for them did not keep Titus from letting his troops dispatch as many as five hundred in a day: "The soldiers, out of the rage and hatred they bore the prisoners, nailed those they caught, in different postures, to the crosses for the sport of it, and their number was so great that there was not enough room for the crosses and not enough crosses for the bodies." Josephus calls it "the most wretched of deaths." He tells of the surrender of the fortress Machaerus on the east shore of the Dead Sea when the Romans threatened a Jewish prisoner with crucifixion.

An especially grim description of this punishment, meted out to murderers, highwaymen, and other gross offenders, is the following from a didactic poem: "Punished with limbs outstretched, they see the stake as their fate; they are fasted, nailed to it with sharpest spikes, an ugly meal for birds of prey and grim scraps for dogs." Much later in Latin speech "Crux!" became a curse, to indicate the way the speaker thought the one accursed should end. Other epithets among the lower classes found in Plautus, Terence, and Petronius are "Crossbar Charlie" (Patibulatus) and "Food for Crows" (Corvorum Cibaria).[ 53 ] Sloyan indicates who merited this most ignominious form of execution: What types of persons were subjected to this cruel ending in the ancient world, and to whom was it seldom or never administered? The short answer to the first is: the slaves and lower classes; soldiers, even in command positions (but not generals); the violently rebellious and the treasonous.

As to the second, citizens of the Greek city-states and of the Roman state were usually done away with more briskly, seldom by crucifixion. . . It was considered too cruel and, not least, too demeaning for the upper classes. Administered to any but slaves and those who threatened the existing social order, it would be an admission that the minority citizen class could be capable of such bestial conduct [so as to deserve crucifixion].[ 54 ] Raymond Brown comments on Roman attitudes to the bodies of the crucified: In investigating Roman customs or laws dealing with the burial of crucified criminals, we find some guidance in DJ 48.24, which gives the clement views of Ulpian and of Julius Paulus from the period CA. AD 200. The bodies of those who suffer capital punishment are not to be refused to their relatives (Ulpian) nor to any who seek them for burial (Paulus). Ulpian traces this attitude back to Augustus in Book 10 of Vita Sua, but he recognizes that the generous granting of bodies may have to be refused if the condemnation has been for treason (maiestas).

The exception was verified a few years before Ulpian in the treatment of the martyrs of Lyons reported in Eusebius (EH 5.1.61-62): The bodies of the crucified Christians were displayed for six days and then burned so that the ashes might be scattered in the Rhone. Christian fellow-disciples complained, "We could not bury the bodies in the earth...neither did money or prayers move them, for in every possible way they kept guard as if the prevention of burial would give them great gain." If we move back from the 2d cent., what was the Roman attitude at the time of Jesus towards the bodies of crucified criminals? Despite what Ulpian tells us about Augustus, he was not always so clement. Suetonius (Augustus 13.1-2) reports, with the obvious disapproval of 2d-cent.

hindsight, that Augustus refused to allow decent burial for the bodies of those who fought for Brutus: "That matter must be settled with the carrion-birds." Since Augustus would have looked on Brutus as a traitor, the parallel to the question of what would happen to those convicted of treason (maiestas) is significant. In the reign of terror that followed the fall of Sejanus (AD 31), Tacitus reports the actions of Tiberius: "People sentenced to death forfeited their property and were forbidden burial" (Annals 6.29). Beyond such imperial vengeance, severity is assumed to be normal by Petronius (Satyricon 111-12), as in Nero's time he writes the story of a soldier at Ephesus who neglected his duty of preventing the bodies of dead criminals from being removed from the cross. While he was absent in the night making love to a widow, the parents came stealthily, took the body down, and buried it, causing the soldier to fear the severest punishment.

Evidently it was almost proverbial that those who hung on the cross fed the crows with their bodies (Horace, Epistle 1.16.48). Discerning Roman legal practice for a province like Judea is difficult. The law cited above (DJ) was juxta ordinem, i.e., customary law in Rome for dealing with Roman citizens. Decisions in the provinces dealing with non-citizens were most often extra ordinem, so that such a matter as the deposition of crucified bodies would have been left to the local magistrate. Before Jesus' time, in Sicily, much closer to Rome, Cicero (In Verrem 2.5.45; #119) reports that a corrupt governor made parents pay for permission to bury their children.

Philo (In Flaccum 10.83-84) tells us that in Egypt, on the eve of a Roman holiday, customarily "people who have been crucified have been taken down and their bodies delivered to their kinfolk, because it was thought well to give them burial and allow them ordinary rites." But the prefect Flaccus (within a decade of Jesus' death) "gave no orders to take down those who had died on the cross," even on the eve of a feast. Indeed, he crucified others, after maltreating them with the lash.[ 55 ] Raymond Brown provides information on Jewish attitudes towards the crucified as well: As we have seen (pp.

532-33 above), there is solid evidence that in Jesus' era crucifixion came under the Jewish laws and customs governing hanging, and in particular under Deut 21:22-23: "If there shall be against someone a crime judged worthy of death, and he be put to death and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree; but you shall bury him the same day, for cursed of God is the one hanged." The conflict between Roman and Jewish attitudes is phrased thus by S. Lieberman: "The Roman practice of depriving executed criminals of the rite of burial and exposing corpses on the cross for many days...horrified the Jews." In the First Jewish Revolt the Idumeans cast out corpses without burial. Commenting with disgust on this, Josephus states, "The Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even those who are crucified because they were found guilty are taken down and buried before sunset." The crucial issue in Judaism, however, would have been the type of burial.

The hanged person was accursed, especially since most often in Jewish legal practice this punishment would have been meted out to those already executed in another way, e.g., stoning. In the OT we see a tendency to refuse to the wicked honorable burial in an ancestral plot (1 Kings 13:21-22). Even a king like Jehoiakim, despite his rank, having been condemned by the Lord for wickedness, had these words spoken of him by Jeremiah (22:19): "The burial of an ass shall be given him, dragged and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem." Jer 26:23 refers to a prophet condemned (unjustly) and slain by the king being thrown "into the burial place of the common people" (see also II Kings 23:6). I Enoch 98:13 excludes from prepared graves the wicked who rejoice in the death of the righteous, and Josephus (Ant. 5.1.14; #44) has Achar at nightfall given "the ignominious burial proper to the condemned" (see also 4.8.24; #264).

The account of the death of Judas in Matt 27:5-8 shows that the Jews of Jesus' time would think of a common burial place for the despised, not a family tomb.[ 56 ] Brown suggests that this may not have applied to Jesus if the condemnation was considered unjust in the sight of God to the Jews: In a political situation where the death penalty was imposed by the Gentiles, however, the opposite could be true: An innocent or noble Jew might be crucified for something that did not come under the law of God, or indeed for keeping the divine law. . . According to Mark/Matt the Sanhedrin found him worth of death on the charge of blasphemy, and Josephus (Ant. 4.8.6; #202) would have the blasphemer stoned, hung, "and buried ignominiously and in obscurity." Mart. Of Polycarp 17:2 has Jews instigating opposition lest the body of Polycarp be given to his adherents for honorable burial. On the other hand, Jesus was executed by the Romans not for blasphemy but on the charge of being the King of the Jews.

Could this have been regarded as a death not in accordance with Jewish law and so not necessarily subjecting the crucified to dishonorable burial?[ 57 ] From the information presented by Brown, we can begin to see the outline of the dilemma presented by the burial of Jesus, which requires any theory of honorable burial to steer carefully between the Scylla of the Roman charge of sedition and the Charbydis of the Jewish accusation of blasphemy. These are treacherous waters indeed, and it must be wondered if they can be navigated safely. The information presented on the Roman practice of crucifixion shows that the very act of taking a body down from the cross for burial was, if practiced at all, the exception to the rule. The popular phrase "Food for Crows," the line about the crucified being an "ugly meal for birds of prey and grim scraps for dogs," the response of Tiberius to the request for burial, the comment from Horace, and finally the story from Petronius about the guard who allowed the body to be stolen off the cross all indicate that part of the very shame of crucifixion was the denial of burial rites as a last act of humiliation.

Moderns do not quickly recognize the cruelty of this, but in ancient times to die without proper burial was considered a most horrible fate, particularly to the Jews. Yet, as Sloyan shows, crucifixion itself was an exercise in cruelty. Reserved for "slaves and those who threatened the existing social order," it cannot be assumed that any mercy would be shown to one who had been considered deserving crucifixion. The exceptions truly are exceptional. As Brown indicates, the comments of Ulpian and Paulus in favor of permitting burial - except, as always, for treason - apply to the more clement situation in Rome. Philo of Alexandria indicates that a case of releasing the body was a somewhat unordinary gesture of goodwill that was extended on a Roman holiday yet sometimes not even then. If one thing is clear, however, it is that no leniency is shown for those who fall under the banner of insurrection, sedition, or treason against Rome. Although Brown makes a distinction between maiestas in Roman jurisprudence that would apply strictly to those arranging military manouvers as opposed to a more informal execution of a perceived instigator or trouble-maker by the governor of a province, the principle in either case is the same.

To respect a common crucified criminal with honorable burial is unusual, but to respect one who is perceived as a threat to Roman rule is, well, right out. Some might wish to avoid this conclusion by declaring the Sanhedrin to have charged Jesus with blasphemy. Yet this is no better. Clearly, those sentenced to execution by the Sanhedrin were not to be given honorable burial. Yet continuing with the idea that Pilate made the judgment for crucifixion, is it most likely that Pilate would have left the body hanging on the cross for several days? While it should not be ruled out entirely, there is at least one reason that judges against it. This consideration has nothing to do with the mercy or brutality of Pilate. Pilate should not be assumed to act as a sadist (or saint) but rather as a prudent politician. Pilate could only be acutely aware of the fact that the time was the Passover festival, that Jerusalem was swarming with travelers and activity, and that it would do grievous insult to the Jerusalem populace and Jews at large to continue to hang the bodies on display through the sabbath and the rest of Passover.

Pilate was no fool and had no wish to incite unrest by his own actions. At the same time, however, Pilate could hardly intend to give respect to the one he crucified. Pilate would want to avoid insulting the people as well as to avoid respecting the crucified. The logical conclusion is that Pilate should order dishonorable burial in a criminal's graveyard for the body of Jesus and the two lestai with him. I say it in this way, that Pilate should order dishonorable burial because that is indeed what Pilate should do. Pilate is perfectly capable of finishing off his own executions. If Pilate is acting on his own authority in crucifying Jesus, not merely acquiescing to the demands of a Sanhedrin unwilling to carry out their own verdict, there is no reason for Pilate to allow any third party burial service to swoop in. And I say it that way because the character of Joseph has all the signs of deus ex machina in the Markan plot. Jesus has been abandoned by his disciples, convicted by the Sanhedrin, and executed by Pilate.

Yet along comes the noble knight riding in from Arimathea, daring to ask Pilate to be able to meddle in his affairs, disregarding the prohibition on honorable burial for the condemned, and providing proper interment in his own newly rock-hewn tomb before sundown on the sabbath, which just happens to be nearby and which just happens to have never contained anyone yet (lest he defile the grave of his ancestors). How does Raymond Brown deal with this enigma of a man, Joseph of Arimathea? Brown suggests that Joseph was merely a "pious Sanhedrinist" who desired to see that God's law be carried out with respect to burial before the sun sets.[ 58 ] This thesis is not without its difficulties. For example, in Mark, Joseph requests the body of Jesus specifically and disregards the other two crucified. The pious Jew presumably would have wanted to take care of all three; alternatively, if it be supposed that the thieves would have been buried by the Romans anyway, then there is no reason for the pious Jew to get involved at all.

Brown suggests, "We have to assume that the story in the Synoptics has been narrowed down in its focus to Jesus, ignoring the two others who were no longer theologically or dramatically important."[ 59 ] This is not entirely unreasonable, although it would be another mark against the reliability of Mark, who does seem to assume that no other bodies were placed in the tomb with Jesus. But is it very likely that a pious Sanhedrinist would be rushing about on the day before the sabbath during the Passover to have the bodies of the crucified properly buried? As I have indicated, Pilate was perfectly capable of performing the burial with his own means, and thus there would be no offense to the law of God. Indeed, the Romans were in an easier position to perform the burial, since they would not have acquired ritual impurity thereby.

Moreover, the historical Joseph would probably have had better things to do at this time than greatly inconvience himself for those who could only be commonly perceived as crucified scum, the Galilean just as much as the highwaymen.[ 60 ] Not only would it require the ritual impurity of himself or the summoning of his servants to the cross, as well as the expense of the linen and anointing oil, but most of all it would require the use of his own nearby rock-hewn tomb (which, again, just happens to have nobody buried there yet). Tombs at that time were undoubtedly expensive to build or to quarry, and for this reason tombs were jealously preserved within families over several generations. The only motivation for a pious Jew to undertake a tomb burial for the man would be a strong belief that the crucified deserved an honorable burial. However, this would require that Joseph considered the charge to be unjust in the sight of God.

Not only is it difficult to understand why a simple pious Sanhedrinist would be moved to conclude that such a one had been crucified unjustly, but it is hardly plausible that Pilate would have allowed Jesus to be given an honorable burial, as this would be tantamount to an admission that Jesus was crucified without just cause. It is not without reason, therefore, that Craig suggests that Joseph was indeed a secret admirer of Jesus: "his daring to ask Pilate for a request lacking legal foundation, his proper burial of Jesus's body alone, and his laying the body in his own, expensive tomb are acts that go beyond the duties of a merely pious Jew."[ 61 ] Against such a view, Brown writes, "No canonical Gospel shows cooperation between Joseph and the women followers of Jesus who are portrayed as present at the burial, observing where Jesus was put (Mark 15:47 and par.). Lack of cooperation in burial between the two groups of Jesus' disciples is not readily intelligible, especially when haste was needed.

Why did the women not help Joseph if he was a fellow disciple, instead of planning to come back after the Sabbath when he would not be there?"[ 62 ] Again we might wonder what could have motivated the Sanhedrinist to an admiration for this particular crucified Galilean, especially if there were any historical reality to the actions of Jesus against the Temple. An original tradition that Jesus was buried by hostile figures would count against the disciple interpretation. Moreover, the tendency is towards making Joseph appear more like a disciple and thus suggests that the historical reality was nothing of the sort.

As Brown says of those who take Mark as meaning that Joseph was a devotee of Jesus, "If that was what Mark meant, why did he take such an indirect and obscure way of saying so?"[ 63 ] Brown shows the figure of Joseph as it moves from Mark, to the later evangelists, to the Gospel of Peter, to the Gospel of Nicodemus, and eventually into the Glastonbury legend to exhibit an increasing sense that Joseph was a model disciple of Jesus.[ 64 ] Craig has added his own speculation to the mix of legend concerning Joseph with his suggestion that Joseph was a delegate of the Sanhedrin and a secret disciple who was commissioned to dispose of all three bodies in a criminal's grave yet who nevertheless tricked both Pilate and the Sanhedrin by giving a proper burial for the Lord in his own nearby tomb.[ 65 ] Craig had already noted considerations against the idea that Joseph was acting as anything other than a private citizen: "None of the gospels suggest that Joseph was acting as a delegate of the Sanhedrin; there was nothing in the law that required that the bodies be buried immediately, and the Jews may have been content to leave that to the Romans.

That Joseph dared to go to Pilate and ask specifically for Jesus's body is difficult to understand if he was simply an emissary of the Sanhedrin, assigned to dispose of the bodies."[ 66 ] It is for these reasons that Craig seems to prefer the suggestion that the Romans disposed of the thieves while Joseph took the body of Jesus. Yet again, however, Jesus is the least likely of the three for Pilate to release, for not only might it suggest that the crucifixion was unjust but it also would lend justification to whatever sedition that Pilate suspected and would honor one who had been condemned as a threat to order. There is one final reason to think that Pilate would have ensured that Jesus did not receive an honorable tomb burial.

Raymond Brown notes, "There was in this period an increasing Jewish veneration of the tombs of the martyrs and prophets."[ 67 ] Craig agrees, stating, "During Jesus's time there was an extraordinary interest in the graves of Jewish martyrs and holy men and these were scrupulously cared for and honored."[ 68 ] If Pilate considered the historical Jesus to be an enemy of the state, how much more would Pilate have to fear not only making him a martyr but also establishing a shrine to Jesus right in Jerusalem? It is in Pilate's best interest to make certain that Jesus would have been buried without honor and in obscurity. Notes [ 53 ] Gerard Stephen Sloyan, The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), pp. 15-16. [ 54 ] Sloyan, ibid., p. 18. [ 55 ] Brown, ibid., pp. 1207-1208. [ 56 ] Brown, ibid., pp. 1209-1210. [ 57 ] Brown, ibid., p.

1210. [ 58 ] Brown, ibid., p. 1218. [ 59 ] Brown, ibid., p. 1216. [ 60 ] It is not exactly clear what the charge was against the lestai; they are described as thieves, highwaymen, or sometimes revolutionaries. In any case, the man crucified betwixt the two was not likely to receive better treatment and perhaps even less likely. Among other reasons, there was snobbery of people in Jerusalem against Galileans. There were some who thought that no good could come from Galilee, cf. Jn 1:46, Jn 8:52. But, most importantly, it would be assumed that someone who was crucified most likely deserved it unless there was some compelling reason to think otherwise. I find it hard to see how someone on the Sanhedrin would have been compelled to think otherwise of one who, if the gospel record is to be trusted here, opposed the Temple and was declared "King of the Jews." [ 61 ] Craig, ibid., p. 176. [ 62 ] Brown, ibid., p.

1218. [ 63 ] Brown, ibid., p. 1215. [ 64 ] Brown, ibid., pp. 1232-1234. [ 65 ] Craig, ibid., p. 176. [ 66 ] Craig, ibid., p. 175. [ 67 ] Brown, ibid., p. 1280. [ 68 ] Craig, ibid., p. 356. The Burial of Christ's Body : Christian Courier The Burial of Christ’s Body by Wayne Jackson While it is common to stress the death and resurrection of Christ, little attention generally is paid to the matter of the Lord’s burial, as though minimal significance is attached to that circumstance, in contrast to these other events. That is not true. Paul declares that the gospel of Christ involves the death, burial, and resurrection of the Savior (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). After the death of Jesus Christ upon the cross, his body was removed and placed in the new (unused) tomb of a wealthy gentleman who was a member of the Hebrew Sanhedrin, Joseph of Arimathaea.

The apostle Matthew wrote: And when evening was come, there came a rich man from Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple: this man went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded it to be given up. And Joseph took the body, and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb, and departed (Matthew 27:57-60; cf. Mark 15:43). The Bodies of Criminals From a strictly human vantage point, the burial of Jesus’ body in the manner described above was a radically unusual procedure. Christ was crucified by Roman authorities (at the behest of rebellious Jews – Acts 2:23). According to the Latin poet, Horace, it was the Roman practice to leave a body upon the cross until it decayed. He spoke about crucified slaves “feeding crows on the cross” (Epistle 1.16.46-48).

On the other hand, it was the custom of the Jews that any sentenced to death by the Sanhedrin was “not to be buried in the sepulchers of their fathers; but two burying places were appointed by the council, one for those that were slain by the sword and strangled, the other for those that were stoned who also were hanged and burnt” (Lightfoot, 2.374; emp. original). The Jewish historian Josephus wrote: “We consider it a duty to bury even our enemies” (Wars 3.8.5). But, as one scholar has observed, an “area far outside the city of Jerusalem had been consigned for the burial of executed criminals” (Lane, 578). Professor Lane cites ancient Jewish sources in support of his statement. Additionally, it has been noted that for Pilate “to release the body of a condemned criminal — especially one condemned of high treason — to someone other than a relative was highly unusual” (Wessel, 8.785).

Why would the governor permit the corpse of this Jesus, who had created such an upheaval throughout the region, to be released to anyone — particularly in view of the fact that Christ had foretold his own resurrection? Great care, therefore, would have been taken to prevent any confiscation of the body. As the chief priests and Pharisees explained the matter to Pilate: Sir, we remember that that deceiver said while he was yet alive, “After three days I will rise again.” Command therefore that the sepulcher be made sure until the third day, lest haply his disciples come and steal him away, and say unto the people, “He is risen from the dead”: and the last deception will be worse than the first (Matthew 27:63-64). Burial of Christ The burial of the Savior’s body conformed to neither Jewish nor Roman custom, in terms of how the remains of criminals were dispatched. Why was this the case?

The immediate explanation lies in the fact that Joseph was an influential Jew of “honorable estate” (Mark 15:43), who “asked for the body of Jesus.” And Pilate, the Roman governor, for reasons not explained in the biblical text, “commanded it to be given up” (Matthew 27:58). The ultimate explanation, however, is to be found in the fact that divine prophecy foretold that though Jehovah’s suffering Servant would be “assigned a grave with the wicked” (NIV), nonetheless he would be buried “with a rich man in his death” (Isaiah 53:9). Divine providence clearly was at work in the fulfillment of this prophecy. Liberal scholars attempt to evade the thrust of this prophecy by making the term “rich” a mere allusion to Jesus’ enemies, or else that of an elaborate burial; but Motyer forcefully points out: Wicked ... rich: the former is plural and the latter is singular. If Isaiah had merely intended the contrast between a shameful and a sumptuous burial, he would have used two singulars.

The use of a plural and a singular suggests that he is talking not about categories but about actual individuals (337). He goes on to point out that only Matthew’s record of Jesus’ burial in Joseph’s tomb can be the fulfillment of the prophecy. Divine Overruling Though Christ’s enemies doubtless intended that his grave be that of a common criminal (he was crucified between two thieves), it is absolutely remarkable that a prophet, seven hundred years earlier, foretold that the Lord would be buried with the “rich.” As observed already, this clearly is at variance with a reasonable expectation. How could such a prediction possibly have happened by chance? It could not have. Ordinary human beings are unable to predict the future — no matter how many ridiculous claims there are to the contrary. However, He who knows “the end from the beginning” is able to see the future, cause it to be written, and finally fulfilled (Isaiah 46:10).

It was essential that the location of the tomb be readily known, in view of the fact that some, likely in their opposition to the doctrine of the resurrection, would protest that Christ had not been raised, but the location of his grave simply was unknown, or had been misidentified. This futile explanation has been attempted many times across the centuries. But that view cannot be valid in view of the Jerusalem circumstances; Christ was buried in the tomb of a very prominent man. His tomb was not shrouded in obscurity. The Seal Further, the tomb was marked and authenticated with a Roman seal. If a door had to be sealed, it was first fastened with some ligament, over which was placed some well-compacted clay [or wax], and then impressed with the seal, so that any violation of it would be discovered at once (Job 38:14; Song of Solomon 4:12; Matthew 27:66) (McClintock, 9.492-493). It would be absurd to assume that the Romans kept no records of such important documentation. The burial of Jesus, therefore, is a matter of supreme importance — intricately related to both the Savior’s death and his resurrection.

And it should not be passed over lightly. The “Embalming” There is a final matter that warrants some reflection. It is commonly asserted that Jesus’ body was “embalmed.” That term is nowhere used with reference to the preparation of the Lord’s body. Certainly it was not an “embalming” analogous to what the Egyptians practiced, where there was a mutilation of the remains (see Morris, 496, 730). Among the Jews there was an anointing with spices, when such could be afforded, to retard the stench of decomposition (cf. John 11:39; see Borchert, 282). Here is an important observation. The fact that the friends of Christ provided spices, and anointed his body for burial, clearly reveals that they had not grasped the significance of Psalm 16:10, namely that his flesh would not experience “corruption” (cf. Acts 2:25-28) because he would be raised. What is the importance of this point? After Jesus’ death, the disciples did not concoct some outlandish plan to steal the body and proclaim that he had been resurrected!

They did not anticipate the resurrection. They fully expected the corpse to decay and return to the dust. It was only seeing him on that Sunday following his death (and subsequently for 40 days) that generated their faith in a “risen Lord.” This is extremely powerful circumstantial evidence of the genuine resurrection of the Savior’s body. Christianity is based upon a buried and resurrected Lord; the religion is genuine and stands unique, in contrast to all other religious systems — either ancient or modern. References Borchert, Gerald L. (2002), The New American Commentary – John 12:21 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman). Lane, William L. (1974) The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans) Lightfoot, John (1976), A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica (Grand Rapids: Baker). McClintock, John and Strong, James (1970), Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids: Baker). Morris, Leon (1995), The Gospel According to John – Revised (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Motyer, J. Alec (1999), Isaiah – Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press). Wessel, Walter (1984), â€œMark,â€ The Expositorâ€™s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). Scripture References 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; Matthew 27:57-60; Mark 15:43; Acts 2:23; Matthew 27:63-64; Matthew 27:58; Isaiah 53:9; Isaiah 46:10; Job 38:14; Matthew 27:66; John 11:39; Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:25-28 Cite this article Jesus' crucifixion site? (A 'Skull', Garden & Tomb) - YouTube Jesus' crucifixion site? (A 'Skull', Garden & Tomb) Want to watch this again later? Sign in to add this video to a playlist. Need to report the video? Sign in to report inappropriate content.

The interactive transcript could not be loaded. Loading... Rating is available when the video has been rented. This feature is not available right now. Please try again later. Published on Mar 2, 2012 ...a location near the Old City of Jerusalem matches the biblical description of Jesus' crucifixion site and tomb with remarkable accuracy. (Below are detailed notes showing how the featured location corresponds with the New Testament's description of the crucifixion and burial site...) 1) The New Testament says that Jesus was crucified "outside the gate"..."near the city" [Hebrews 13:12 ; John 19:20 ]. The featured site is located immediately north of the Old City of Jerusalem. 2) The gospel writers reported that Jesus was crucified at "the Place of a Skull", known as 'Golgotha' in Hebrew, meaning 'Skull' [Matthew 27:33 ; Mark 15:22 ; Luke 23:33 ; John 19:17 ]. Near the Old City of Jerusalem, 'cavaties' in a rocky hillside align to form a vivid image of a skull.

3) The disciple John recorded that at the crucifixion site "there was a garden" [John 19:41 ]. In the same location as the skull image, evidence has been found of a sizable garden plot from antiquity: a) Multiple ancient water cisterns, hewn out of the bedrock have been discovered. These would have stored a significant amount of water which could be used to maintain a garden. b) A large ancient winepress was also uncovered which would have been used to press grapes grown in the garden. The garden was significant enough in size to apparently require a full-time gardener [John 20:15 ]. 4) John also wrote that at the crucifixion site, in the garden, there was "a new tomb" where Jesus was buried [John 19:41 -42]. In the area of the water cisterns and winepress, a large ancient tomb has been found which matches numerous details from the New Testament about the tomb Jesus was buried in: a) The disciple Matthew wrote that the tomb was "hewn out of the rock" [Matthew 27:60].

The tomb found at the featured site is hewn out of the limestone bedrock. b) Matthew specified that it belonged to "a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph" [Matthew 27:57 -60]. The quality and size of the discovered rock-hewn tomb, as well as its location in a large garden near Jerusalem, confirm that its owner must have been wealthy. c) It is also recorded that Joseph of Arimathea"rolled a large stone against the door of the tomb" after the body of Jesus was placed inside [Matthew 27:60]. Carved into the rock-floor along the outside of the tomb is a long channel (or 'trough'), which would have enabled a large stone to be rolled in front of the doorway. d) Matthew also wrote that shortly after Jesus' burial, the authorities "made the tomb secure, sealing the stone" to prevent the body from being taken away [Matthew 27:66]. On the outside of the discovered tomb near the entrance, material containing iron has been found which possibly was nailed in to seal the stone in place.

e) Both John and Luke spoke of visitors to the tomb "stooping down" to look inside [Luke 24:12 ; John 20:5; John 20:11 ]. The entraceway found at the tomb is relatively low, making it necessary to 'stoop down' on the ledge to view inside. f) The New Testament writers recorded that Jesus' body was placed lying down in the tomb, such that after the resurrection two angels were seen sitting in the tomb... "one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain" [John 20:12 ]. A carved-out 'bed' (long enough for a body to lie fully extended) is found inside the tomb, which is slightly elevated at one end, apparently acting as a 'pillow' for the head. g) Mark recorded that after the resurrection someone clothed in white was seen "sitting on the right side" of the tomb [Mark 16:5]. Upon entering the discovered tomb, the open burial space is seen on the right-hand side.

h) John described the tomb as "a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid" [John 19:41 ]. There is evidence indicating that the tomb was 'new' at the time of Jesus' burial: A second 'bed' is also inside the large tomb, which appears unfinished in comparisson with the other bed. A plausible explanation is as follows: It could be that Joseph of Arimathea was building the tomb for two people (perhaps for himself and his wife, as many husband and wife couples are buried together today). In the midst of construction when it was nearly completed, Joseph unexpectedly made use of the tomb to bury Jesus. After the burial and resurrection of Jesus, Joseph likely considered the tomb too sacred to be used for anyone else, and therefore never completed its construction; explaining why the construction of the second bed was never finished, and explaining how the tomb was recognized as 'new' at the time of Jesus' burial. Category BBC - The Passion - Articles - Judas The Passion Judas Joseph of Arimathea was a wealthy Jewish man who buried the body of Jesus Christ after the Crucifixion.

There are many legends about him, including one that he visited Britain with the young Jesus, and another that after the Crucifixion he brought the Holy Grail to Glastonbury in Somerset and established the first Christian church there. The story of Joseph of Arimathea The story of Joseph of Arimathea is told in all four gospels. Joseph was a wealthy man who came from Arimathea in Judea. He was a good and righteous man who managed to be both a member of the Council (the Sanhedrin) and a secret supporter of Jesus - which is why he did not join in the Council's actions against Jesus. After the death of Jesus, Joseph asked Pilate for permission to take Jesus' body and bury it properly. Permission was granted and the body was taken down. Joseph, helped by Nicodemus, wrapped the body in cloth with the addition of myrrh and aloes. They buried Jesus in an unused tomb that Joseph may have intended for himself, where it was protected by a heavy stone rolled against the opening. What the Bible says about Joseph of Arimathea When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus.

He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus; then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. So Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock. He then rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and went away. Matthew 27:57-60 When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time. When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. Then Joseph bought a linen cloth, and taking down the body, wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.

Mark 15:42-64 Now there was a good and righteous man named Joseph, who, though a member of the council, had not agreed to their plan and action. He came from the Jewish town of Arimathea, and he was waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God. This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then he took it down, wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid it in a rock-hewn tomb where no one had ever been laid. Luke 23:50-53 After these things, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, though a secret one because of his fear of the Jews, asked Pilate to let him take away the body of Jesus. Pilate gave him permission; so he came and removed his body. Nicodemus, who had at first come to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds. They took the body of Jesus and wrapped it with the spices in linen cloths, according to the burial custom of the Jews.

Now there was a garden in the place where he was crucified, and in the garden there was a new tomb in which no one had ever been laid. And so, because it was the Jewish day of Preparation, and the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there. John 19:38-42 The legends of Joseph of Arimathea But there's much more to Joseph of Arimathea than is found in the gospels. A whole host of other stories have grown up around him...

He was the first person to bring Christianity to Britain, having been sent with other disciples by St Philip He built Britain's first church (some say this was actually the first church in the world) He was Mary's uncle, and thus Jesus' great-uncle He was a merchant who visited England to buy Cornish tin He took Jesus with him to England when Jesus was a teenager (local legends say that among the places they visited were St Just in Roseland and St Michael's Mount) He brought to England two vials containing the blood and sweat of Jesus (or two vials containing the sweat of Jesus) He brought the Holy Grail to England and hid it in a well at Glastonbury, now called the Chalice Well Joseph was related to Jesus This story may originate from the tradition that the senior male relative of a crucified person was obliged to deal with the body. Jesus' father was no longer around, so if Joseph of Arimathea did volunteer for the task, that suggests that he must have been related to Jesus in some important way. Joseph of Arimathea in England There are two well-known legends about visits Joseph paid to the West of England.

However when historians looked at the evidence, they could find no mention of Joseph of Arimathea until the 13th century. It's been suggested that the association of Joseph of Arimathea with Glastonbury was a deliberate ploy to add to the status of Glastonbury by associating it with such a prestigious person. Joseph visited England with the young Jesus One of the abiding legends of early English Christianity is that Joseph of Arimathea visited the West Country of England with the teenage Jesus. Both Somerset and Cornwall claim to have been visited by Joseph and Jesus. The contemporary troubadour Van Morrison has put the legend to music in his song Summertime in England... ...Won't you meet me down by Avalon In the summertime in England In the Church of St. John... Did you ever hear about Jesus walkin' Jesus walkin' down by Avalon? Van Morrison, Summertime In England, from the album Common One The name 'Avalon' refers to Glastonbury, and Glastonbury parish church is dedicated to St John.

But far better known is this poem by William Blake, based on the same legend, and famously set to music by Sir Hubert Parry as 'Jerusalem': And did those feet in ancient time Walk upon England's mountains green? And was the holy Lamb of God On England's pleasant pastures seen? And did the countenance divine Shine forth upon our clouded hills? And was Jerusalem builded here Among those dark satanic mills? Bring me my bow of burning gold! Bring me my arrows of desire! Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold! Bring me my chariot of fire! I will not cease from mental fight, Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand, Till we have built Jerusalem In England's green and pleasant land. William Blake (1757-1827) The legend of the Glastonbury Thorn The Glastonbury Thorn (Crataegus monogyna 'Biflora') is a variety of hawthorn that flowers twice a year in winter and spring - or, given suitable conditions, at Christmas and Easter. The legend states that Joseph of Arimathea became a missionary after the death of Jesus and was eventually sent to England to preach the Gospel.

He took with him the Holy Grail, and his pilgrim's staff. After landing in England he made his way to Glastonbury. When he stuck his pilgrim's staff in the ground at Wearyall Hill it overnight turned into a flowering thorn tree. In time Joseph converted thousands to Christianity, including, it is said, 18,000 in a single day at the town of Wells. He also converted Ethelbert, the local king. Joseph went on to found Glastonbury Abbey. He became so well-known and admired that when he died at the age of 86, his body was carried by six kings in the funeral procession. The Glastonbury Thorn is said to flower on Christmas Day every year, and blossom from the plant in the churchyard of St John's Church Glastonbury is said to be used to decorate the Christmas breakfast table of the Queen each year. St John's Church has a stained glass window commemorating Joseph of Arimathea. Buried & Sealed, Jesus in the Tomb: Spiritual Life in God Teach All Nations Publishers CBN.com - Excerpt from the book Paid in Full . John’s Gospel tells us that near the crucifixion site was a garden.

The Greek word for “garden” is kepos, and it refers to any garden with trees and spices. It can also be translated as an orchard. The same word is used in John 18:1 to describe the Garden of Gethsemane, which was an olive tree orchard. All four Gospels suggest that this tomb was near the place where Jesus was crucified, but John 19:42 says, “…The sepulchre was nigh at hand.” The word “nigh” is the Greek word aggus, meaning nearby. Most crucifixions were performed along a roadside. Evidently this garden was located in an orchard-like place, just down the road from where Jesus was crucified. John 19:41 tells us that in the garden was “…a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.” The word “new” is the Greek word kainos, meaning fresh or unused.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that the tomb had recently been made but that it was a tomb that had never been used — thus, the reason John writes, “…Wherein was never man yet laid.” Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record that this tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, suggesting that it was the tomb he had prepared for his own burial. The fact that it was a tomb “hewn out in the rock” (Matthew 27:60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53) confirms the personal wealth of Joseph of Arimathea. Only royalty or wealthy individuals could afford to have their tombs carved out of a wall of stone or in the side of a mountain. Poorer men were buried in simple graves. The word “hewn” in Matthew, Mark, and Luke comes from the Greek word laxeuo, meaning not only to cut out, but to polish. It implies that it was a special tomb, a highly developed tomb, a refined tomb, or a tomb that was splendid and expensive.

Isaiah 53:9 had prophesied that the Messiah would be buried in a rich man’s tomb, and the word laxeuo strongly suggests that this was indeed the expensive tomb of a very rich man. John 19:42 says, “There laid they Jesus….” The word “laid” comes from the word tithimi, which means to set, to lay, to place, to deposit, or to set in place. As used here, it portrays the careful and thoughtful placing of Jesus’ body in its resting place inside the tomb. Luke 23:55 tells us that after Jesus’ body was placed in the tomb, the women who came with Him from Galilee “…beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.” The word “beheld” in Greek is theaomai, from which we get the word theater. The word theaomai means to gaze upon, to fully see, or to look at intently. This is very important, for it proves the women inspected the tomb, gazing upon the dead body of Jesus to see that it had been honorably laid in place.

Mark 15:47 identifies these women as Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses and says that these women “…beheld where he was laid” at the tomb. The imperfect tense is used in Mark’s account, alerting us to the fact that these women took their time in making sure Jesus was properly laid there. It could be translated, “they carefully contemplated where he was laid.” If Jesus had still been alive, those who buried Him would have known it, for they spent substantial time preparing His body for burial. Then after His dead body was deposited into the tomb, they lingered there, checking once again to see that the body was treated with the greatest love and attention. Once they were certain everything was done correctly, Joseph of Arimathea “…rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed” (Matthew 27:60; Mark 15:46). It was rare to find a stone entrance to a Jewish tomb in biblical times; most Jewish tombs had doors with certain types of hinges. A large stone rolled before the tomb would be much more difficult to move, making the burial site more permanent.

However, the chief priests and Pharisees weren’t so sure that the site was secure. Fearing that Jesus’ disciples would come to steal the body and claim that Jesus had been resurrected, the Jewish leaders came to Pilate and said, “…Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first” (Matthew 27:63,64). When the chief priests and Pharisees asked that “…the sepulchre be made sure…,” the Greek word sphragidzo is used. This word described a legal seal that was placed on documents, letters, possessions, or, in this case, a tomb. Its purpose was to authenticate that the sealed item had been properly inspected before sealing and that all the contents were in order. Aslong as the seal remained unbroken, it guaranteed that the contents inside were safe and sound.

In this case, the word sphragidzo is used to signify the sealing of the tomb. In all probability, it was a string that was stretched across the stone at the entrance of the tomb, which was then sealed on both sides by Pilate’s legal authorities. Before sealing the tomb, however, these authorities were first required to inspect the inside of the tomb to see that the body of Jesus was in its place. After guaranteeing that the corpse was where it was supposed to be, they rolled the stone back in place and then sealed it with the official seal of the governor of Rome. After hearing the suspicions of the chief priests and Pharisees, “Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can” (Matthew 27:65). The word “watch” is the Greek word coustodia, from which we get the word custodian. This was a group of four Roman soldiers whose shift changed every three hours. The changing shifts assured that the tomb would be guarded 24 hours a day by soldiers who were awake, attentive, and fully alert.

When Pilate said, “Ye have a watch…,” a better rendering would be, “Here — I’m giving you a set of soldiers; take them and guard the tomb.” Matthew 27:66 says, “So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.” Wasting no time, the chief priests and elders hastened to the tomb with their government-issued soldiers and the special officers assigned to inspect the tomb before placing Pilate’s seal upon it. After a full inspection had been made, the stone was put back in place, and the soldiers stood guard to protect the tomb from anyone who would attempt to touch it or remove its contents. Every three hours, new guards arrived to replace the old ones. These armed soldiers guarded the entrance to Jesus’ tomb so firmly that no one would have been able to come near it. The purpose of the seal was to authenticate that Jesus was dead; therefore, we can know that His body was thoroughly inspected again for proof of death. There is no doubt that Jesus was dead, for He was examined again and again, even as He lay in the tomb.

Some critics have claimed that only Jesus’ own disciples inspected His body and that they could have lied about His being dead. However, an officer from Pilate’s court also examined the body of Jesus. We can also be fairly certain that the chief priests and elders who accompanied the soldiers to the burial site demanded the right to view His dead body as well so they could verify that He was truly dead. When Jesus came out of that grave several days later, it was no hoax or fabricated story. In addition to all the people who saw Him die on the Cross, the following individuals and groups verified that His dead body was in the tomb before the stone was permanently sealed by an officer from the Roman court of law: Joseph of Arimathea carefully laid Him inside the tomb. Nicodemus provided the embalming solutions, assisted in embalming Him, and helped Joseph of Arimathea lay Him in His place in the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of Joses, lovingly examined His body and carefully contemplated every aspect of the burial site to ensure everything was done properly and respectfully. Rome’s official officer ordered the stone rolled back.

Then he went into the tomb and examined the body of Jesus to verify that it was Jesus and that He was really dead. The chief priests and elders entered the tomb with Rome’s official officer so they could look upon Jesus’ dead body and put an end to their worries that He had somehow survived. Roman guards checked the contents of the tomb because they wanted to know for sure a body was there. They didn’t want to be guarding an empty tomb that would later be used as a claim of resurrection, while they got blamed for the disappearance of Jesus’ body. After all of these inspections were complete, Rome’s official officer ordered the stone rolled back in its place. While the chief priests, elders, and Roman guards watched, he secured the site and sealed it shut with the seal of the governor of Rome. Regardless of all these efforts to secure the site and to keep Jesus inside the grave, it was impossible for death to hold Him.

When preaching on the day of Pentecost, Peter proclaimed to the people of Jerusalem, “…Ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain [Jesus]: whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it” (Acts 2:23,24). Today the tomb in Jerusalem is empty because Jesus arose on the third day! Now He is seated on His throne at the right hand of the Father on High, where He ever lives to make intercession for you and for me (Hebrews 7:25). That means we never have to struggle alone. At any time of the day or night, we can come boldly before the throne of grace and ask for divine assistance (Hebrews 4:16). There is no mountain in your life God cannot move. So make your requests known to Him, confidently expecting Him to move on your behalf. As you do, you will receive supernatural grace to help in time of need. Think About It The purpose of the seal on Jesus’ tomb was to authenticate that He was indeed dead and to secure the site.

Pilate’s soldiers, as well as the chief priests and elders, inspected Jesus’ body to verify He was truly dead. Notice the ignorance and arrogance that led men to believe they had controlled and contained the Son of God. Are there any areas of your life that you have kept sealed and secure in an attempt to prevent God from stirring you to change? The religious leaders recalled that Jesus said He would rise from the dead. They heard the truth but did not comprehend its significance. Think about all that Jesus declared about Himself during His walk on this earth, and consider all He has spoken to you personally. Do you truly believe Jesus? Have you taken the time to meditate on the significance of His words? Jesus was the Father’s promise of hope for mankind. When He died and was then buried, creation was shocked and His disciples were devastated. But God raised Jesus to new life. What seemed to be the end was actually only the beginning. Flip through the pages of your own life’s story. What promise from God to you seems now incapable of coming to pass? What hope or dream in your life have you buried? Consider the power of the One who raised Jesus from the dead.

Then, like Jesus, commit yourself into the hands of the One who makes all things new. He is faithful. Will you trust Him? First John 3:16 (NKJV) states, “By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren….” What are some ways you can lay down your life for others? Jesus paid the price for your salvation, for your liberation, for your physical healing, and for your complete restoration. When the price for your forgiveness was complete, Jesus bowed His head and died. God’s justice had been fulfilled. The Old Covenant had ended, and the New Covenant had begun. It was the fulfillment of one and the beginning of another. Think of the price Jesus paid and what His death accomplished for you. Doesn’t it make you want to stop for a few minutes to thank Him for what He has done for you? Where would you be today if Jesus had not died on the Cross for you? Why don’t you take a little time right now to express your heartfelt thanksgiving to Jesus for paying the debt you never could have paid! Where was Jesus buried?

- OnFaith Share on Facebook Share on Twitter 1 Comments Where was Jesus buried? c. 2012 Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly JERUSALEM (RNS) During Holy Week, Christians remember the familiar story of Jesus’s death and … Continued by Kim Lawton| Religion News Service c. 2012 Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly JERUSALEM (RNS) During Holy Week, Christians remember the familiar story of Jesus’s death and resurrection. But exactly where does that story take place? The Bible offers only a few clues. “The Gospels weren’t really written to record a history,” the Rev. Mark Morozowich, acting dean of the School of Theology and Religious Studies at the Catholic University of America, told the PBS program “Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly.” ‘’They were written to provide a testimony of faith.” According to the New Testament, Jesus was crucified at a spot outside Jerusalem called Golgotha, which in Aramaic means “place of the skull.” The Latin word for skull is “calvaria,” and in English, many Christians refer to the site of the crucifixion as Calvary.

The Gospel of John says there was a garden at Golgotha, and a tomb which had never been used. Since the tomb was nearby, John says, that’s where Jesus’s body was placed. The Gospel writers say the tomb was owned by a prominent rich man, Joseph of Arimathea. They describe it as hewn from rock, with a large stone that could be rolled in front of the entrance. “When he was crucified, (Jesus) was not really a significant feature in Israel,” said Morozowich. “Certainly there was jealousy, certainly he had his followers, but there was no church that was built immediately upon his death or to mark his resurrection.” In the 4th Century, as Emperor Constantine was consolidating the Roman Empire under his newfound Christian faith, his mother, St. Helena, traveled to Jerusalem. According to tradition, she discovered relics of the cross upon which Jesus had been crucified. The spot had been venerated by early Christians, and she concluded it was Golgotha. Constantine ordered the construction of a basilica on the spot, which became known as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Over the centuries, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed, rebuilt and renovated several times. There have been numerous power struggles over who should control it, and even today, sometimes violent squabbles can break out among the several Christian denominations that share jurisdiction. Still, it’s considered one of the holiest sites in Christianity, a massive place of pilgrimage and intense spiritual devotion. “What more of a moving place, to walk in Jerusalem, the place of the crucifixion, to meditate at Golgotha where Jesus Christ died, the place where he rose from the tomb,” Morozowich said. But despite the history and devotion, some Christians — including many Protestants — believe Jesus could have been crucified and buried at a different place in Jerusalem known as the Garden Tomb. “The (Garden) Tomb was discovered in 1867. For hundreds of years before that, it had lain buried under rock and rubble and earth,” said Steve Bridge, deputy director at the Garden Tomb, which is located just outside the Old City’s Damascus Gate. He said this site was promoted in the late 19th century by British Gen. Charles Gordon.

The site includes a rock formation, with two large indentations, which resemble the eye sockets of a human skull. Gordon, and others, believed this could have been the “place of the skull” mentioned in the Bible. The ancient garden below the rock formation has ruins of cisterns and a wine press, which Bridge said could indicate that it was owned by a wealthy person, perhaps Joseph of Arimathea. In the garden is a tomb, cut from the rock. “The tomb itself is at least 2,000 years old. Many date it as older than that. But it’s certainly not less than 2,000 years old,” Bridge said. “It’s a Jewish tomb. It’s definitely a rolling stone tomb. That means the entrance would be sealed by rolling a large stone across.” According to Bridge, the Garden Tomb is not trying to set up a competition with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. “There’s no doubt that historically, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, has the evidence on its side,” Bridge said.

“What we say we have here is something that matches the Bible description.” And for him, Bridge said it ultimately doesn’t matter where the actual place was, because he believes Jesus rose from the dead three days after the crucifixion. “On that score, us and the Holy Sepulchre would be exactly the same, telling the same story, but on a different site,” he said. Morozowich agreed. He said his faith teaches that during the Easter season, Christians should focus more on what Jesus did, rather than on where he may have done it. “We know that Jesus is more than this historical figure that walked the earth. And in his resurrection, he transcends all of that so he is as real and present in Mishawaka (Ind.) and in Washington, D.C. as he is in Jerusalem,” said Morozowich. (A version of this story was first broadcast on the PBS television program “Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly” Copyright: For copyright information, please check with the distributor of this item, Universal Uclick.

Question: After the 'Crucifixion' in whose tomb was Jesus buried?
Answer: JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA