What about the Guards at Jesus’ Tomb?

Category: New Testament 9,095 17

In two previous articles, I taught that Jesus’ body could not have been stolen or moved. In these two articles, I willingly left out one piece of evidence – the guards. According to Matthew 27:62-66, Pilate and the Jewish religious leaders had guards placed at the tomb because the religious leaders believed that the disciples may have had ideas to steal the body. The fact is that if there were guards, it would have been even more difficult for someone to have come along and either stolen or moved the body.

Arguments against the guards

Yet many skeptics love to talk about the guards. Many believe that the guards did not exist, and that they were invented by Matthew. The reason why this is believed is because the guards are only mentioned in Matthew’s gospel, “an impossibility if there was such a detachment,” according to atheist Robert Price.[1] Surely Mark, Luke, and John would have mentioned the guards if they were real. Since only Matthew writes about them, he surely made them up. It is believed that during the time he was writing his gospel, there were rumors of the body being stolen by the disciples so Matthew made the guards up to explain away the rumors.

But what if the guards really did exist? These same skeptics give some very interesting scenarios as to what might have happened if the guards were real.

  1. There was an entire night before the guards were posted, so someone may have stolen or moved the body during that time. Along with this, it is argued that the gospels do not mention that the guards or religious authorities checked to see if the body was still there (Matthew 27:66).[2] So the body may have been stolen before the guards had been posted.
  2. Historian Richard Carrier thinks that it is not improbable that someone stole the body while the guards slept, since this is the story that Matthew has the religious leaders make up. Otherwise the story of the sleeping guards would have been useless if someone stealing the body was not possible.[3]
  3. The guards took a bribe to allow the disciples to steal the body.[4]
  4. Price thinks that it is possible that Jesus never even died on the cross. Instead, he swooned (passed out) and the guards found him barely alive and either: 1) fled in superstitious fear (thinking that Jesus had come back to life); or 2) they helped Jesus.[5]

Admittedly, these are some very creative solutions to the problem that the guards pose to the empty tomb. But do they stand up against close scrutiny? Let’s take a look.

Only Matthew mentions the guards

The argument “since Matthew is the only gospel to have mentioned the guards so he must have made them up” is an old argument that has been worn out. Each gospel writer had a different purpose for writing and felt free to pick and choose from the available traditions that he would use to tell Jesus’ story. Even modern historians will not present every single detail about the topic that they are writing about. Since there is so much information available about any topic, a writer must pick and choose what they will and will not present to their readers.

But why didn’t the other gospels tell about the guards? Quite simply, there may have been no reason to. Remember someone writing about a topic cannot include every detail, so the guard story may not have been important to the audience that Mark, Luke, and John were writing to. However, the situation was clearly different where Matthew was. There seems to have been rumors going around in Jewish circles that the disciples had stolen the body. So naturally Matthew had to deal with those rumors.

But doesn’t this show that Matthew invented the guard story to deal with the rumors going around? No. Could we not turn this argument around and say that Matthew may have selected the guard story from authentic history? Christian writer James Patrick Holding makes a good point when he says, “If ‘motive’ is used as an argument here [that Matthew had a motive to invent the guards] then it [can be] used [in all arguments], and we can also accuse Matthew’s opponents of inventing the ‘stolen body’ argument (because they had a motive to do it).”[6] Quite simply, Matthew chose to use the account of the guards because it was relevant at the time and place of his writings. This is how historians (and other writers) do their work.

Lastly, we should not doubt something just because it is not found in multiple sources. Most events in history are only mentioned by one source, and even when an event in history does have multiple attestations, sometimes those multiple sources go back to only one source. It is also interesting to note why skeptics even argue about Matthew being the only source for the guards. If multiple sources were really important to them, then why don’t they believe that Jesus resurrected? All four gospels (more than one source) mention that.

Scholar N.T. Wright makes a great point:

“The story, obviously, is part of an apologia for the bodily resurrection of Jesus. It is an attempt to ward off any suggestion that the disciples had in fact stolen the body, which must have seemed the most natural explanation for the emptiness of the tomb. But, while the historian is always cautious about accepting obviously apologetic tales, there are further considerations which make it very unlikely that this one was actually invented from scratch within the Christian community.

For a start, it is implausible to suppose that the whole story would have been invented in the first place, let alone told and finally written down, unless there was already a rumour going around that the disciples had indeed stolen the body. If nobody had suggested such a thing, it is difficult to imagine the Christians putting the idea into people’s heads by making up tales that said they had.

Furthermore, a charge such as this would never have arisen unless it was already well known, or at the very least widely supposed, that there was an empty tomb, and/or a missing body, requiring an explanation. If the empty tomb were itself a late legend, it is unlikely that people would have spread stories about body-stealing, and hence that Christians would have employed the dangerous tactic of reporting such stories in order to refute them.

Finally, the telling of the story indicates well enough that the early Christians knew the charge of stealing the body was one they were always likely to face—and that it was preferable to tell the story of how the accusation had arisen, even at the risk of putting ideas into people’s heads, rather than leave the accusation unanswered.”[7]

Was the body stolen or moved before the guards were posted?

There are also a number of problems with skeptics arguing that the body was stolen on Friday night before the guards were posted. First, the night between Jesus’ burial and the posting of the guards was a part of Passover. No Jew would have touched a dead body to steal or move it. Second, as D.A. Carson says, “If Matthew [was] trying to prove Jesus’ body was not stolen, why does he not have the guard posted immediately, instead of waiting till the next day (v. 62)?”[8] If Matthew had invented the guard story he would have placed the guards at the tomb right after the burial of Jesus to prove his point, not wait until the next day.

But about the guards not checking the tomb to see if Jesus’ body was still there? Lita Cosner says, “All of this is simply speculation. And it relies on the assumption that the Jewish Temple police and the high priests were too dumb to check the tomb before they sealed it. Lack of modern forensic handling of evidence or not, it stretches credulity to think they would have been that stupid.”[9]

The body was stolen while the guards slept

But couldn’t someone have stolen the body while the guards slept? Maybe Joseph of Arimathea moved the body over night between the burial and the posting of the guards? First off, the guards would not have fallen asleep since this would have meant severe punishment. Second, let’s assume that they did (which has a very slight possibility). Whoever was taking the body would have had to move a stone weighing thousands of pounds, unwrap the body, fold the clothes, and then carry the body through a holy city during a holy festival where there were possibly millions of people in attendance. All of this and never waking up the guards? Good luck with that. As for the lie that the religious leaders made up about the guards falling asleep, it was naturally a silly lie, and that is probably the reason why it never worked on anybody.

Did the guards take a bribe?

This argument shows just how desperate skeptics are getting. Why would the disciples bribe the guards, steal the body, then go out and be persecuted and die for what they knew was a lie? (Read “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: The Evidence” for more on this kind of argument).

Did the guards flee or help Jesus?

Robert Price and others have argued that Jesus may have survived the crucifixion. The argument goes: Jesus passed out on the cross, woke up on the third day, and then appeared before the disciples and lied about being resurrected. (I’ll discuss this topic more in-depth in a future article, so I’m not going to debunk it here). The guards then found him alive and either ran away or helped him.

This is a bad argument. First, when the disciples began preaching that Christ had resurrected, all the guards and religious leaders would have had to do was tell everyone that Jesus had survived the crucifixion and that the guards helped him. Yet there is no evidence of this happening. Second, where does Price get his evidence that the guards would have ran away. Could not the guards have entered the tomb and checked out the situation?

Conclusion

When all the evidence is examined it is clear that skeptics have no reason to reject Matthew’s account of the guards. Their alternative scenarios to the guards are bad, and it seems that the only reason why they reject the guard story is that it shows us that no one could have taken the body.

What do you think? Do the skeptics make good points, or do you agree with me? Leave a comment below.


[1] Robert Price, “Explaining the Resurrection without Recourse to Miracle.” In The End of Christianity. ed. John Loftus. Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2011. Pg. 226; Also see Richard Carrier, “The Plausibility of Theft.” In The Empty Tomb. Eds. Robert M. Price and Jeffrey Jay Lowder. (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2005. Pg. 358.

[2] Carrier, 358.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Price, 226.

[6] James Patrick Holding, Defending the Resurrection. Xulon Press. Pg. 395.

[7] N.T. Wright. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Pg. 638.

[8] D.A. Carson. Matthew 13-28, Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Quoted in Lita Cosner, “Did Joseph of Arimathea move the body?” http://creation.com/joseph-of-arimathea.

[9] Cosner.

Liked it? Take a second to support Christian Worldview Press on Patreon!
Become a patron at Patreon!

Related Articles

17 thoughts on “What about the Guards at Jesus’ Tomb?

  1. Brandye Dague

    Wow! This is amazing! Thank you for all your time in writing your blogs. I’m a Jesus believer so maybe that’s why I’m convinced, but to me you’ve made a lot of good points that I would think would make “non-believer” think again. Great post!

    Reply
  2. Rev. George Blair

    The most obvious conclusion is that Mark invented the story (Paul does not mention the empty tomb) and the story became well-enough known for detractors to poke holes in it. So the young man becomes an angels, guards and sealed tombs are added. Most likely none of this happened–it was a poetic way to describe and experience of the risen Lord which was happening in the hearts of his followers.

    Reply
  3. mmcclellan2

    George, thanks for your comment.

    -Mark invented the story of the empty tomb

    Why do you say this? It is hard for me to have an answer to this since you do not say why you believe that Mark invented the empty tomb. Let me know why you think this; I would like to discuss this further with you.

    -Paul does not mention the empty tomb

    This is an argument from silence. Paul believed that Jesus physically rose from the dead. This naturally implies an empty tomb since Jesus took his body with him when he resurrected. Writer J.P. Holding offers some additional insights on this issue in this article: http://www.tektonics.org/tomb/kirby01.php. He notes that people living in the time period of Paul would have naturally assumed that the tomb was empty. I highly suggest reading that article. It is long; however, the most relevant part is towards the beginning under the section titled “Argument from Silence.”

    -Young man becomes angels

    You seem to be implying that the resurrection accounts grew and changed over time. I have to disagree with you. Here is an excellent article refuting this idea: http://www.tektonics.org/guest/barkblund.html

    -Guards and sealed tomb added

    I already dealt with this in this article.

    -None of this happened/It was poetic

    The Gospels and the rest of the New Testament (especially 1 Corinthians 15) clearly present the resurrection account as historical, not some kind of poetic event. Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 15:14 that if Jesus did not actually resurrect, than faith is useless. This seems to imply that the resurrection account was considered truth/history to the early Christians, not poetry. Can you supply me with some literary evidence in favor for the resurrection accounts being poetry and not history?

    Reply
    1. Rev. George E. Blair III

      Paul describes Jesus appearing to him in a vision, not bodily. The testimony in Acts is similar. The bodily resurrection only became important to those who had not experienced the spiritual resurrection.

      The Bible is full of stories intended to be poetic and not literal. Jesus’s parables for one.

      The young man became an angel for Matthew and two angels for Luke.

      How many women were at the tomb? One? (John); many (Luke) three (Matthew)? What were their names?

      To accept the stories as literal does too much violence to each individual gospel account.
      Christianity has never been about what happened to the bones of Jesus.

      Reply
      1. Jason

        Romans 8:11 (NKJV)

        11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

        Clearly Paul believes that Jesus had risen in an actual body or this verse wouldn’t make sense as he is equating the same resurrection (mortal body) to both Jesus and His followers by the same Spirit.

        John 20:27 (NKJV)

        27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”

        Clearly John in his gospel believed in an actual bodily resurrection for Jesus (and so did Thomas).

        John 21:12-13 (NKJV)

        12 Jesus said to them, “Come and eat breakfast.” Yet none of the disciples dared ask Him, “Who are You?”—knowing that it was the Lord. 13 Jesus then came and took the bread and gave it to them, and likewise the fish.

        Again clearly Jesus had a physical body as it would be difficult to pass out bread and fish as a spirit.

        John 20:19-20 (NKJV)

        19 Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled,[a] for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.

        If Jesus was merely spirit then why would he still have a hole in his side and holes in his hands?

        Lastly, you have presented no evidence that Paul’s meeting with the risen Lord was a vision. While it does seem to be a supernatural event, there is nothing in the passage that says it was a vision. From Acts 9:

        3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”
        5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”
        Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.[a] It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”
        6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?”
        Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
        7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one. 8 Then Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened he saw no one.

        However, just a few verses later Ananias does see the Lord in a vision because it says so:

        10 Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and to him the Lord said in a vision, “Ananias.”

        The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is the most important event in history, providing irrefutable evidence that Jesus is who He claimed to be – the Son of God.

        Reply
  4. Gary M

    The only author in the Bible who mentions anything about guards being at the tomb, Matthew, says that the guards were not posted until the next day after Jesus body had been placed in the tomb, and, even though Joseph of Arimethea had rolled a great stone in front of the tomb, he had not sealed it. So, the tomb of Jesus was left unguarded and unsealed the entire first night, in the darkness, and probably part of the next day. That would provide ample time and ample opportunity for someone to have moved or stolen the body.

    So even if the biblical account of the “guards at the tomb” story is correct, the fact that there is a time period when the tomb was left unguarded, blows a hole in the Christian claim that a resurrection is the best explanation for the empty tomb and the disciples’ belief that Jesus had been resurrected. For instance, if grave robbers had taken the body, the Jews would say that the disciples took the body and the disciples would say that Jesus had fulfilled his prophecy and had risen from the dead.

    Reply
    1. Jason

      The Pharisees were very concerned about someone stealing the body. Since it was the Passover no Jew would’ve done work so they went to Pilate for a guard the following day. It was so important that they troubled the Roman Governor to post a guard, do you not think they would’ve had the tomb checked? And, if grave robbers stole the body would they not have had to roll the large stone (requiring several robbers) from the entrance? Would they take time to roll it back? Would they take the time to unwrap the linen and the 100 pounds of spices and fold the handkerchief that was wrapped around his head? And, how does grave robbers explain the claim that the apostles saw the Lord? What about the 500 at one time that were eyewitnesses of His resurrection of which many were still alive at the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (15:6)?

      Reply
    2. Michael

      The burial happened in a hurry, as by sunset the Sabbath occurred. There was just no time to seal the tomb, plus the perfuming of the grave-site had still to occur. There are many things wrong with the assumption of the body being stolen:
      1. If the disciples “stole” the body of Christ, why would they allow themselves to be brutally killed for heir belief in a risen Christ?
      2. The Jewish leaders would not have “stolen” the body, as it would have fuelled the very “sect” they were trying to eradicate
      3. The Romans would not have taken the body for much the sae reason; and
      4. Why on earth would grave-robbers take a recently deceased body with no wealth or riches buried along-side? If anything, they would have taken everything in the tomb besides the body…

      That is how deep the hole blown into the Christian claim is

      Reply
    3. Cake 1.6

      At first I saw it as you see it. Then I realized that the stone would have been put back in place once the body was moved just to be moved again the day following the sabbath. It sounds like a lot of work to steal a body and make it appear as if it wasn’t stolen and then to come back and somehow roll away the stone two nights later to show that the tomb was empty. Why wouldn’t someone just claim that it was empty and have the guards roll back the stone in order to verify the claim.

      Reply
      1. Cake 1.6

        Why wouldn’t someone just claim that it was empty and have the guards roll back the stone in order to verify the claim?* Question mark added. Grammar policing myself.

        Reply
  5. Aron Featherf00t

    Simply put Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea are the only two who had the motive, means and opportunity to move the body. As to the objection of the Pharisees not being stupid enough no to check the tomb: well they were. I’m I suppose to believe that it was more probable that a first century decomposing dead guy came back to life and survived more than thirty seconds with a hole in his heart or that the Pharisees were too stupid to check? I think the answer is obvious.

    Reply
    1. Jason

      Both Nicodemus and Joseph were strict Pharisees and would observe the Passover which is a major event in the life of a Jew. They would not be moving dead bodies late at night. Please do some research about Passover before you make such a flippant argument.

      Reply
  6. Jonathan Price

    Definitely agree, so extremely thankful we live in an age with such access-to-information! I know it can be a challenge in some ways, but for a Christian looking for answers, it’s an unparalleled blessing… one thing I would love to hear more on, and you may even cover in your expounding on the Swoon Theory debunking, but I would love to hear from a medical perspective how long it would realistically take for the wounds Christ would have without a doubt had, and how bad those wounds would have been. Scourging (especially with a Cat of Nine Tails from that day) nailing to a cross and then piercing with a spear. I would guess it would take several months in an ICU to even survive such things, but like I said, would love to hear the facts. Thanks again for the blessing of your Exposition here, definitely enjoyed it!

    Reply
  7. Mychael

    I like looking at what other religions say when I do research as well. You have to look at both sides of the coin before you can come to a conclusion, and for this story, what the Jewish religion says happened would make this story all the more plausible. The Jewish religion states that when they checked the tomb on the third day and saw that it was empty, they began to accuse the disciples of stealing the body. The Queen demanded they find His body within three days. They went and questioned the gardener that worked the fields where the tomb was located. The garderner claimed that he was the one that actually moved the body so that the disciples wouldn’t even have the chance to steal it and claim that He rose from the dead. He then took the man to where the body was now buried and dug up the body for him. That man then brought the body back to the Queen. So now let me ask you this: if this story were true, and this story is straight from the Jewish religion today, then why would the disciples ever have been accused in the first place? If they weren’t accused of stealing the body, then why would any of them even worry about mentioning the large stone, or in Matthew’s case, worry about mentioning the guards? Why mention that the Roman guards began spreading rumors that they stole the body? Those rumors would not have been floating around because the Queen had the body in hand already. Now you could say that the Queen just didn’t tell anyone that they recovered the body, but that would literally be the dumbest move you could make when trying to discredit Jesus, so why would she do that?

    The other thing though, besides all of this, besides all of the article above, despite it all, you can’t tell me that of ALL of Jesus disciples throughout the years of persecution, with how many of them died defending this truth, if it all was just a lie, you can’t tell me that not one of them would have cracked under pressure and came out saying “We made it up, we stole the body, this is where it’s located.” Not a single one did this. They all died with the same truth. “Well maybe some of them did crack and tell the truth and where they buried Him.” If that’s the case, where is that story? If you wanted to discredit Jesus, having a disciple “crack and come clean” would have been a huge step on this path, yet no one says this happened. No one. I can tell you that if me and five friends did something wrong and we became suspects, they start hounding us, questioning us on what went down, that for one, our stories would not be the same. Detectives don’t look at small detail differences too much, like I say there were three women at the bank but Johnny says he only saw one, this detail could be important, but most likely either Johnny only noticed one woman or didn’t think it was important to mention the other 2 women because they didn’t interact with anybody. But the story overall would have major differences if we were lying and the main points would be different. I say we were at Chase Bank but Johnny says we were at PNC. Major difference, we’re lying at this point. My second point is that not only would our stories not match up, but out of the 6 of us, someone will break down and tell the truth. It is inevitable. The only time anyone ever gets away with a crime is if they commit it by themselves and they tell no one, or they find out the truth, but the criminal has fled the country. If 2 or more people know the truth, then the truth will eventually come out. My point though is that no one claims any of the disciples swayed on their stories. They all stuck to the same story, with the same major points as one another, and none of them broke down saying otherwise. That is because they were telling the TRUTH.

    Reply
  8. Anonymous

    The book of Matthew says that there were guards as well as Mary Magdalene and “the other” Mary at the tomb when the Miraculous event occurred. Matthew says that they were all afraid that the guards became like “dead men”, which I presume to mean that for awhile they were not conscious.

    While the guards lay unconscious, the two Marys were told by an angel that Jesus was raised up and gone, and that they needed to go tell the disciples. On the way to see the 11, Jesus intercepts them and calls out, “All Hail!” The two Marys worship him for awhile until he also tells them to tell the 11 to meet him in Galilee.

    While the women are on their way to find the disciples, some of the guards show up in Jerusalem and tell the Chief Priests what has happened. Matthew doesn’t tell us EXACTLY what they told the Priests but the only TRUTHFUL story they could have told them was (1) They stood guard all night without incident (2) Sometime after dawn, two of Jesus’ female disciples showed up at the tomb seeking admittance (3) Just as the two disciples arrived on the scene, there was a massive earthquake and the stone rolled away from the tomb. (4) They saw something that badly frightened them but they were knocked unconscious and had no direct knowledge of what happened while they were out. (5) When they woke up, they checked the tomb and the body was gone. (6) The two female disciples that were there before they lost consciousness were no longer there. All that would have been the truth as they knew it. Any major disagreements so far?

    The story gets strange at that point because we are told that the Priests pay the guards a large sum of money to say that the disciples stole the body while they were asleep. That is not a very good “lie” because if they were asleep, how would they know for certain who came and took the body? On the other hand, the last things that they witnessed before they lost consciousness were two of Jesus’ disciples seeking entrance to the tomb, an earthquake, the stone rolling away, and what possibly could be a supernatural being that frightened them so badly they lost consciousness. When they woke up and found the tomb empty and the women gone, wouldn’t it be logical for them and everyone else involved to assume that the disciples had taken the body while they lay unconscious? Since the actual truth is just as good as the story the priests supposedly paid the guards to tell, they could have saved themselves some money and allowed the guards to recite the facts as they knew them.

    The priests, not being actual witnesses to the event had the choice of believing that a perfectly naturally occurring earthquake had both rolled away the stone and incapacitated the guards, thus provided the disciples a fortuitous and unexpectedly opportunity to remove the body OR believing that a supernatural event had occurred. Unless the guards actually were reporting that they had witnessed a supernatural event, then one had to ask why would members of the priesthood want to deny that it occurred? Wouldn’t it make more sense, if they believed he had actually been raised up, to go seek him out and see if he actually was alive?

    The story about the priests paying off the guards to lie is quite frankly too fantastic to be believed.

    As far as people being willing to suffer martyrdom for a non resurrected Jesus, there is ample evidence that some kind of con was going on from the outset. Not one person immediately recognized the person identified as the resurrected Jesus after the stone was rolled away. Mary thought that he was the gardener. Two disciples, one of them his own cousin, walked with him for seven miles without recognizing him, and when they did think it was him, he vanished. When the disciples saw Jesus standing on the shore while they were fishing, John was the only one who said it was the lord, and later we are told that there was skepticism among the others but that they didn’t dare ask who it was because John said it was the lord. It sounds an awful lot like the disciples just convinced themselves that he was alive. If you want to believe that God kept the witnesses from recognizing Jesus, then to what end? What was the purpose of raising him up if he showed himself to a few of his followers who didn’t recognize him and had to be convinced that it was him?

    Reply
  9. Theresa Pease

    I think it’s so interesting to read all the different view points of people, and especially the skeptics. I think that people who don’t believe are never going to believe bc, like the Jewish leaders that killed Jesus, they have hearts of stone. The scriptures are not for such people (don’t cast your pearls before swine). No part of scripture is designed to refute every naysayer. God gave us what He wanted us to have and He probably left out stuff so the hard-hearted would have a chance to hang themselves. I’m convinced It’s part of the weeding- out process of souls.

    Reply

What are your thoughts on this topic? Leave a comment.