Why was the stone rolled away?

[Guest]

Do you think there was any significance to the fact that the stone enclosing the tomb of jesus was rolled away? the stone didnt need to be rolled away for jesus to leave the tomb, and perhaps an empty tomb with the roman seal still affixed to the closed stone would have been a more convincing proof of the resurrection vs alternate theories.

assume the stone wasnt rolled away, but Jesus began appearing to his disciples. word would spread, and the jewish leaders likely would have had the tomb inspected; if the stone was still closed and the seal still affixed, and they had the tomb opened and jesus was not there, they would be hard pressed to claim the body was stolen, that he wasnt really dead, etc. obviously God decided that the stone would be rolled away; i am just looking for any special significance to this.

speculatingly yours,

TK

[Guest]

Hi, TK,

Awesome question, man!

The obvious answer from a non-believer's standpoint would be that the stone actually had to be rolled away in order to remove the body, and so it was found in that condition. But I don't know that the resurrection didn't take place, necessarily, so I'd like to hear people's ideas on this.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Awesome question, man!

Agreed.

Do you think there was any significance to the fact that the stone enclosing the tomb of jesus was rolled away? the stone didnt need to be rolled away for jesus to leave the tomb, and perhaps an empty tomb with the roman seal still affixed to the closed stone would have been a more convincing proof of the resurrection vs alternate theories.

assume the stone wasnt rolled away, but Jesus began appearing to his disciples. word would spread, and the jewish leaders likely would have had the tomb inspected; if the stone was still closed and the seal still affixed, and they had the tomb opened and jesus was not there, they would be hard pressed to claim the body was stolen, that he wasnt really dead, etc. obviously God decided that the stone would be rolled away; i am just looking for any special significance to this.

I think it was to allow the disciples inside the tomb to see his that his body was missing. This prepared them for the later appearances of Jesus. If they had seen Jesus, but had not seen his body missing from the tomb, they might think him a ghost or a hallucination.

I'm not sure that God was interested in convincing those whose hearts were already hardened. Matthew records that the guards had seen the angel roll the stone away and related that to the chief priests and elders (many of whom aquiesced to the crucifixion of Jesus). Note that the Jewish leaders didn't rush back to see if this was correct, but decided to pay the guards to lie that the disciples had stolen him away. What an amazing denial and an obvious indication of closed minds and hearts to the truth. Makes you wonder what proof, if any, that would have convinced them.

[Guest]

good point, dave.

right after i posted this question i had the same thought about the jewish leaders-- i.e. nothing would have convinced them. "convinced" is the wrong word because in my opinion they fully knew that jesus was raised from the dead but simply would not acknowledge same in order to protect their religious fiefdom. the same is seen in the book of Acts, namely the sanhedrin's stubborn refusal to repent when they knew full well what was happening.

so i agree that the rolled away stone was for the benefit of the disciples.

TK

[Guest]

Hello, TK,

...in my opinion they fully knew that jesus was raised from the dead but simply would not acknowledge same in order to protect their religious fiefdom.

There may have been more to the picture than mere self-interest (although self-interest was probably a factor too!). The gospel of John suggests that the leadership was afraid of Roman reprisal for a popular messianic movement [John 11:48-50]. Since John springboards from this into a theological interpretation, it is possible that (as often is the case) this is actual historical precedent, only latterly massaged to abet John's theological agenda.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

hey emmett--

you're not trying to get me to feel sorry for the sanhedrin are you?

TK

[Guest]

Hello, TK,

Thanks for your response.

you're not trying to get me to feel sorry for the sanhedrin are you?

1) Even in Christian tradition, the Sanhedrin was not a monolithic group.

and 2) The Jewish leadership, though it had its failings, was also in a very difficult situation, poised between violent populist extremists and a ruthless occupying power. Given the historical context, where messianic pretenders had come and gone, and where Roman power had demonstrated its willingness to employ violent means, we should at least grant the Jewish leadership a nuanced appraisal. It does no service to either historical truth or theology to paint the Sanhedrin as vaudevillian villains, sheerly black in hat and heart. If the tradition is accurate, the Jewish leadership were faced with a national crisis: an itinerant from the back country had shown up in town for the festival of national liberation (Passover), a time when nationalistic sentiment would run high, and when the Romans would pack extra troops into Jerusalem; this same itinerant had raised a major commotion upon his arrival, with crowds exulting over the Davidic kingdom and/or its scion; this same Davidic harbinger had thrown the temple into upheaval, all under the nose of a Roman garrison; this same ruckus-rouser, when brought for examination before the leadership, generally refused to present a defense on his own behalf. This was not simply a matter of refusing to relinquish power in favor of God's messiah.

So should we feel sorry for the Sanhedrin? Well, they don't really need us to send them flowers at this point. But we do need to fairly appreciate the pressures they were under, so we can inculcate the patterns of sensitive engagement in our own selves, and so we can more legitimately apply the historical lesson from their lives to our own. It is not entirely a story about the intransigence of the proud, selfish, and comfortable, and rather significantly a story about the trying nexxus where questionable hope meets unquestioned peril.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

E. said:

It is not entirely a story about the intransigence of the proud, selfish, and comfortable, and rather significantly a story about the trying nexxus where questionable hope meets unquestioned peril.

awesome sentence! i'll have to remember that last phrase-- its a good one.

I understand your point-- but the question of just how "questionable" the hope was, especially as the events in the Book of Acts unfolded, seems to put many of the council, but likely not all, in a rather bad light. I really believe that the majority of these men, by the time they threw peter in jail for the 3rd or 4th time, knew the truth of the matter. I am sorry that I have not been around on this forum to know exactly where you stand regarding what the truth of the matter is. so my argument may not be persuasive to you. i believe that the sanhedrin knew the truth (that Jesus was alive and that Peter was speaking on His authority and they were guilty of what Peter accused them of) and simply willfully and purposefully tried to cover it up for their own purposes, rather than repent. if they did it to save their own skin, they were cowards, if they did it to preseve their power base, they they were evil. either way, not very flattering.

i dont mean to sound like a sanhedrin basher; i know they had a purpose to serve and all that, but jesus obviously thought they were corrupt and accused them of same directly.

do i believe Christians do this today (i.e. willfully turn a blind eye to a truth because acting on the truth might adversely affect them)? of course they do. so in that sense the sanhedrin certainly can serve as an example of how not to act.

TK

P.S. where do you stand regarding the "truth of the matter?" thx! tk

[Guest]

Hello, TK,

Thank you for your response!

the question of just how "questionable" the hope was, especially as the events in the Book of Acts unfolded, seems to put many of the council, but likely not all, in a rather bad light.

On the one hand, the Sanhedrin did not have the benefit of reading the book of Acts when coming into Jesus' trial. On the other hand, the book of Acts is a single source, composed by a non-eyewitness, and undeniably a partisan one.

I really believe that the majority of these men, by the time they threw peter in jail for the 3rd or 4th time, knew the truth of the matter.

The portrayal of the Jewish leadership in Acts is interesting. Gamaliel argues for letting the apostles be to some extent, in case they might be part of God's plan, and the Sanhedrin agrees to this stance [5:34-40]. This doesn't seem like the stance of an utterly hardened and spiritually vacant group of men.

People in the modern church are impressed by the behavior of the apostles in the book of Acts, who speak boldly and (putatively) bring miracles. But people in the modern church are generally not impressed by Hindu gurus who speak boldly and claim miraculous activities. Similarly, the Jewish leadership may have felt some internal doubt when faced with the behavior of the disciples (if the account in Acts is trustworthy), but boldness and miracles themselves are not necessarily proof of truth. The Jewish leadership probably had encountered many, many demagogues and tales of the miraculous, and they probably had good reason to be skeptical and think seriously about the pragmatic perils of their nation being swept into yet another messianic uprising.

i dont mean to sound like a sanhedrin basher; i know they had a purpose to serve and all that, but jesus obviously thought they were corrupt and accused them of same directly.

Would you do me the favor of identifying the passages where Jesus does so?

P.S. where do you stand regarding the "truth of the matter?"

I find the available evidence to be limited and questionable. The standard Christian package of thought is clearly problematic, being corrupted by commonplace errors from late antiquity (both Jewish and Hellenistic). Although some truth may be reflected in the funhouse mirror, so to speak, it is inessential for a faithful Jewish person in the present day.


Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

I wrote:

i dont mean to sound like a sanhedrin basher; i know they had a purpose to serve and all that, but jesus obviously thought they were corrupt and accused them of same directly.

Emmett asked for the verses supporting this. i believe i mispoke in my original statement. i said "sanhedrin" but i should have said the Sadducees and Pharisees (which made up the Sanhedrin). Jesus' castigation of these individuals are many and dont require much plowing through scripture. but Jesus did not (i don't believe) rail against the Sanhedrin directly as a body. sorry for my mistake.

TK