Roman seal on Christ's tomb

Most of my commentaries point back to Dan 6 and the lions' den sealing. Expositor's Greek Testament: 'The participial clause—σφραγίσαντες τὸν λίθον—is a parenthesis pointing to an additional precaution, sealing the stone, with a thread over it and sealed to the tomb at either end.'

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240209#Comment_240209

how the seal would be able to keep anybody out

Not the physical seal, but the fact that it represented the authority of the Roman Governor.

MJ. Smith

Wait - I think this evening's news had a segment on the recent archeological find. They found a tomb with a broken seal. The seal may date to the 1st century. The tomb might be near Jerusalem. The tomb must be the one Jesus borrowed. They even found the scroll with the 3 day rental agreement.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240209#Comment_240209

Keep Smiling [:)]

Tobias Lampert

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240210#Comment_240210

Wait - I think this evening's news had a segment on the recent archeological find. They found a tomb with a broken seal. The seal may date to the 1st century. The tomb might be near Jerusalem. The tomb must be the one Jesus borrowed. They even found the scroll with the 3 day rental agreement.

Talkin' about the archaeologist who stepped into the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in order to get some cooling?

Carey G. Pearson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240214#Comment_240214

At this point, the tomb is officially sealed with the Roman seal. The sealing of the tomb was done in several steps. First, a strong rope was placed around the stone at the door of the tomb. Secondly, the two ends were drawn to the side of the door on the outer wall of the tomb. Thirdly, a wax or clay seal was placed on the rope where it crossed itself in front of the stone and where the rope touched the two sides of the tomb. It would be impossible to move the stone without breaking the seal. To break the Roman seal was punishable by death. This occurred on Saturday. Jesus was laid in the tomb on Friday and, on Saturday; the Roman guard was placed to make sure that the body would not be stolen out of the tomb.

The Messianic Bible Study Collection

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240222#Comment_240222

Fascinating - thanks for posting this.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240222#Comment_240222

At this point, the tomb is officially sealed with the Roman seal. (...) the Roman guard was placed to make sure that the body would not be stolen out of the tomb.

Matthew 27:65-66

⁶⁵ Pilate said to them, “You have a guard¹⁰of soldiers. Go, make it as secure as you can.” ⁶⁶ So they went and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone and setting a guard. ESV

¹⁰ Or Take a guard

Mark, Luke, and John - no mention of a guard

Was it Roman Soldiers or Jewish Temple guards? Under what rules did the Temple guards operate when outside the Temple? Did they need Pilate’s permission to operate outside of the temple? [for example - to go to the tomb?] [Thursday night they went out under the cover of darkness hoping that the Romans did not notice]

“You have a guard” – as in [maybe] use your own soldiers!

“Make it as secure as you can” – AS YOU CAN – Pilate did not say I WILL SECURE IT FOR YOU

[Yes, I have read ALL of the commentaries in my platinum Logos 4 package on this subject. But from the Bible and the Bible alone I am not convinced. Can anyone trace the history of the theory of it being Roman Soldiers?]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240210#Comment_240210

Wait - I think this evening's news had a segment on the recent archeological find. They found a tomb with a broken seal. The seal may date to the 1st century. The tomb might be near Jerusalem. The tomb must be the one Jesus borrowed. They even found the scroll with the 3 day rental agreement.

[:D] [:D] [:D]

That's 3 guffaws

Schezic

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240286#Comment_240286

That's 3 guffaws

I'll raise you 2 snickers and a chortle.[:)]

William

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240250#Comment_240250

“You have a guard¹⁰of soldiers. ¹⁰ Or Take a guard

that "take a guard" translation to me implies a Roman Soldier.

Carmen Gauvin-O'Donnell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240308#Comment_240308

JNN (Jerusalem News Network) interviewed Joseph of Arimathea after the Resurrection and asked him why he used his own tomb to bury Jesus.

"Well, ya know..." Joseph replied, "... He only needed it for the weekend."

Dr. Charles A. Wootten

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240250#Comment_240250

Matthew 27:65-66

You have a guard

I found an interesting item relating to this discussion:

Matthew (27:65) alone records a request for Roman guards to watch the tomb (it is not clear whether he envisages those who were placed as Roman or Jewish). Thus there remain many problems concerning the precise roles of the Romans and the Jews during the trial and execution of Jesus. It is likely that apologetic, theological and other factors have helped shape the narratives.

Green, J. B., McKnight, S., & Marshall, I. H. (1992). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (714). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

Perhaps those more astute than I can use the following idea to do further research (I don't have a copy of W.L. Craig's study):

κουστωδία, ας, ἡ koustōdia guard*
This Latin loanword (custodia) appears in Matt 27:65 (ἔχω κουστωδίαν, “have a guard”), 66; 28:11 in reference to the guards at the tomb of Jesus. W. L. Craig, “The Guard at the Tomb,” NTS 30 (1984) 273–81.

Balz, H. R., & Schneider, G. (1990-). Vol. 2: Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament (313). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.

It seem that the question boils down to is whether Pilate is authorizing his own guards to go with them or he is granting permission to use the temple guards or some other "police" force. Who knows?

{charley}

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240352#Comment_240352

Who knows?

Thanks for the feed back - "Who knows" is the answer that I hold [after a full day spent on the subject using ALL references found] - I do not see the answer to this as a salvation issue so we do not have to worry about it too often.

But by looking into items like this sharpens my investigations into more important topics where it is important that I know that my leaders are leading me in the correct direction rather then astray.

The Guard at the Tomb Dr. William Lane Craig

Can be found at http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/guard.html (as of 4/14/2011)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240352#Comment_240352

It seem that the question boils down to is whether Pilate is authorizing his own guards to go with them or he is granting permission to use the temple guards or some other "police" force. Who knows?

Seems to me that Matthew 28:13–14 would have a bearing on this question. If they were Jewish Temple Guards, would they have to worry about the Roman Governor hearing news of their sleeping on duty?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240549#Comment_240549

It seem that the question boils down to is whether Pilate is authorizing his own guards to go with them or he is granting permission to use the temple guards or some other "police" force. Who knows?

Seems to me that Matthew 28:13–14 would have a bearing on this question. If they were Jewish Temple Guards, would they have to worry about the Roman Governor hearing news of their sleeping on duty?

Might depend on the relationship between the Romans and the Jews dealing with the rules that the Temple Guards [people trained to use long sharp things] were to operate under - were they to meet the same requirements as the Romans? And there is one BIG word in all English versions of Mat 28:14 'IF'. If the guards were Roman then it would be 'WHEN' not 'IF' [but like I said before - I do not see this as a salvation issue]

Bill Shewmaker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240549#Comment_240549

It seem that the question boils down to is whether Pilate is authorizing his own guards to go with them or he is granting permission to use the temple guards or some other "police" force. Who knows?

Seems to me that Matthew 28:13–14 would have a bearing on this question. If they were Jewish Temple Guards, would they have to worry about the Roman Governor hearing news of their sleeping on duty?

I'm wondering why the "Roman soldiers" would have gone to the priests in the first place...surely they wouldn't admit to their superior officers that they were sleeping on the job (most likely punished by execution). Or were they (as Romans) sympathetic to the Jewish rulers? My assumption (and that's all that it is right now) would be that these were temple guards that could be "bought and paid for" by the Jewish priests to lie to the people and not Roman soldiers who would die rather than tell a lie (admitting that they were sleeping on the job).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240564#Comment_240564

Seems to me that Matthew 28:13–14 would have a bearing on this question. If they were Jewish Temple Guards, would they have to worry about the Roman Governor hearing news of their sleeping on duty?

And there is one BIG word in all English versions of Mat 28:14 'IF'. If the guards were Roman then it would be 'WHEN' not 'IF'

The "If" has to do with their telling the falsehood of sleeping on guard duty. If they told that story to the general populace, it may or may not reach the ears of the Governor.

[but like I said before - I do not see this as a salvation issue]

I agree. It is just an interesting puzzle.

I'm wondering why the "Roman soldiers" would have gone to the priests in the first place...surely they wouldn't admit to their superior officers that they were sleeping on the job (most likely punished by execution). Or were they (as Romans) sympathetic to the Jewish rulers? My assumption (and that's all that it is right now) would be that these were temple guards that could be "bought and paid for" by the Jewish priests to lie to the people and not Roman soldiers who would die rather than tell a lie (admitting that they were sleeping on the job).

Very good points, Bill. This entire discussion has given me a few things to ponder, but none of them are earth-shattering. Whether the guards were Jewish or Roman does not change the fact of the Resurrection.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240768#Comment_240768

This has all been a very interesting and pleasant exchange. If all hermeneutical and theological discussions could be handled in this manner, we would not need Guidelines. My thanks to all who participated.

Dan Sheppard

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240772#Comment_240772

I spoke to my Adult Bible Study class today, about the Roman seals.

Somebody asked me if they used seals everywhere and I told them, "No". The problem was only in Caesarea Maritima, where the only thing available was Harbor Seals.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241389#Comment_241389

I spoke to my Adult Bible Study class today, about the Roman seals.

Somebody asked me if they used seals everywhere and I told them, "No". The problem was only in Caesarea Maritima, where the only thing available was Harbor Seals.

Argh, argh, argh. [View:http://www.ilovewavs.com/Effects/Animals/Sound Effect - Seal Barking.wav]

William

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241392#Comment_241392

Rosie!!!! That is quite enough!!!!![:D] ROFL

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241396#Comment_241396

Rosie!!!! That is quite enough!!!!! ROFL

Hey, Dan made the pun first. I couldn't help but reply to it.

Simon Pleasants

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240772#Comment_240772

If all hermeneutical and theological discussions could be handled in this manner, we would not need Guidelines.

The forum guidelines were added so that the trespass might increase...[;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241447#Comment_241447

If all hermeneutical and theological discussions could be handled in this manner, we would not need Guidelines.

The forum guidelines were added so that the trespass might increase...

[:D] Very good! [Y]

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/241448#Comment_241448

If all hermeneutical and theological discussions could be handled in this manner, we would not need Guidelines.

The forum guidelines were added so that the trespass might increase...

Very good!

With primary forum guidance being how to use Logos Bible Software, friendly discussions about hermeneutical and theological research using Logos Bible Software seems appropriate. Thankful for breadth and depth of library material available in Logos; likewise Thankful for resources being developed plus more suggestions.

Caution: good idea to put [C] out of way before following other locked "hijacking" replies that helped seal some forum guidelines. Found thought provoking Math in one reply => http://community.logos.com/forums/p/6836/56564.aspx#56564

Could add 0 x 9 + 1 = 1 to 2nd list

For 3rd list, could add 0 x 9 + 8 = 8

and 987654321 x 9 - 1 = 8888888888

Keep Smiling [:)]

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240549#Comment_240549

Seems to me that Matthew 28:13–14 would have a bearing on this question. If they were Jewish Temple Guards, would they have to worry about the Roman Governor hearing news of their sleeping on duty?

Since the phrase can be translated "you have a guard" or "Take a guard" and the translations are pretty divided...the relevant passage seems to be the one above...this provides the context for what is being addressed....they must be Roman Guards....right?

The commentaries seem to agree.

PS: this was an interesting study....thanks!

Ted Weis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240772#Comment_240772

Fascinating discussion, as I never even thought the guard was anything but Roman.

I've pasted the significant portions of this thread into my Logos passage notes!

Jim Berglund

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240222#Comment_240222

I really appreciated the insight I haven't found this anywhere else. Would you have the reference and the exact quote?

Jim Berglund

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240222#Comment_240222

Carey G Pearson, thank you for this quote I haven't found it anywhere else. Could you give me a footnoted reference and exact quote please! Jim Berglund pstjim@gmail.com

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/997645#Comment_997645

My further studies on this subject listed the Gospel of Peter as the first source that the guards were Roman. [Written about 125 ad]

BUT if you accept that from the Gospel of Peter then you must also accept that the Cross walked out the the Tomb and spoke.

The next mention of Roman guards was not until about 1000 ad.

One of my questions is what were the terms of engagement of the Temple Guards?

The Roman soldiers could have been at the arrest of Jesus as they were investigating what the Temple Guards were doing out so late at night and just followed along. Then the term "You have a guard" was just giving the Temple permission to guard the tomb. The seal could have been a Temple seal instead of a Roman one. [[Not a salvation issue!]]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/997720#Comment_997720

My further studies on this subject listed the Gospel of Peter as the first source that the guards were Roman. [Written about 125 ad]

BUT if you accept that from the Gospel of Peter then you must also accept that the Cross walked out the the Tomb and spoke.

The next mention of Roman guards was not until about 1000 ad.

One of my questions is what were the terms of engagement of the Temple Guards?

The Roman soldiers could have been at the arrest of Jesus as they were investigating what the Temple Guards were doing out so late at night and just followed along. Then the term "You have a guard" was just giving the Temple permission to guard the tomb. The seal could have been a Temple seal instead of a Roman one. [[Not a salvation issue!]]

"Not a salvation issue" ... I'd suspect differently. 1st, Matthew is insistent the tomb wasn't guarded the first night. Which would be the best body-stealing night against St Paul's theology. Instead Matthew keys in on the '3rd day', which was also Jesus' claim to Antipas. Two much different theologies from the OT.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/997731#Comment_997731

My further studies on this subject listed the Gospel of Peter as the first source that the guards were Roman. [Written about 125 ad]

[[Not a salvation issue!]]

"Not a salvation issue" ???? or !!!!

If they were Roman Soldiers or Jewish Temple Guards is not, IMHO, a salvation issue.

My thoughts on when the guards were placed is no later than 2 hours after sunset Friday evening and that they opened the tomb to see that the Body was still there and that a least two of the guards knew Jesus by sight [He spent much time in the Temple that last week] so that they could id what body was there. [just IMHO]

I think that the high priest ran to Pilate as soon as he heard who got the body.

Mattillo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/240772#Comment_240772

Some old forum posts if this helps:

https://community.logos.com/forums/p/32250/240352.aspx

https://community.logos.com/forums/p/49224/364747.aspx

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/997731#Comment_997731

"Not a salvation issue" ... I'd suspect differently. 1st, Matthew is insistent the tomb wasn't guarded the first night. Which would be the best body-stealing night against St Paul's theology. Instead Matthew keys in on the '3rd day', which was also Jesus' claim to Antipas. Two much different theologies from the OT.

Mat 27:62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,

If the day of the preparation is what we call Friday a simple reading would call the next day Saturday. BUT Jesus died about 3 in the afternoon on Friday [the way most believe it happened – others believe He died on Wednesday or Thursday but this discussion uses Friday] The next day would be Saturday except that the day ended at Sunset [as seen by at least half the Jews of that time] so the next day would cover Friday Evening. That’s why I think [rather than know or believe] that “the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate” some time before 7 pm Friday evening. [Not waiting until 7 am Saturday morning] So the tomb could have been guarded as soon as 8 pm Friday night. [IMHO] [[Just defending my stand on this. How did Matthew define the next day? Friday evening or Saturday Sunrise or the Midnight between the two?]]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/998524#Comment_998524

Well, David, I'm impressed with your helpfulness to the writer of Matthew. Although, a simple reading and the greek seems to demonstrate the writer is intent on the chronology (next immediate day after Mary and other Mary sat looking at the tomb).

I'm always impressed with the length and detail of the gospel writers' efforts. Try just copying a chapter ... it's pretty tedious. Then imagine poor light, ink all over the place, and cleaned material just for your first draft, much less edits.

From a secular point of view, the writers were not likely amateurs. They knew their business. Then if you believe in the Holy Spirit's participation, you have to assume the writing was as intended. What you see would be all you were intended and needed to see (a la Paul's mystery).

My opinion, of course!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/998544#Comment_998544

My opinion, of course!

I always respect your opinion. [Or try to anyway]

But a question: In today's world with the day ending/beginning at 12:00 am. If someone states at 11:59:30 pm that they will see you tomorrow what is the earliest time that they can see you? Do they have to wait until after 6 am or can they say 'HI' at 12:00:01 am? [Hr:Min:Sec]

The Gospel writers don't give the times so, as you state:

What you see would be all you were intended and needed to see (a la Paul's mystery).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/998642#Comment_998642

But a question: In today's world with the day ending/beginning at 12:00 am. If someone states at 11:59:30 pm that they will see you tomorrow what is the earliest time that they can see you? Do they have to wait until after 6 am or can they say 'HI' at 12:00:01 am? [Hr:Min:Sec]

Interesting question. My marriage is an international one. And so, 'next' is always a major issue. Next week switches at Saturday 11:59, or Sunday 11:59? And tomorrow at 12:01 is always greeted with laughter ... today or tomorrow?? At work, next year for accountants was different from next year, for marketing.

In the NT, if you're curious, there's a bunch of tomorrows. But they bounce around by greek expression (3), and author (narritives tend to vary from epistles). It's hard to find a tomorrow (conceivably jewish) that's today (greek). And given the ubiquity of greek culture, it's hard to imagine the Matthew writer playing games with the diaspora (greek readers).

But interesting patterns.

Mary Clare Wallace

I just read on an internet site (Wikipedia?) that a contingent of Roman soldiers would have numbered sixteen. Since they were not allowed to sit or lean on guard duty, and since falling asleep by one soldier would have garnered an unpleasant death for all sixteen guards...AND since in all Catholic bibles it alludes to the guards numbering in threes and fours, it's doubtful that the guards were Roman. Now, if you take into consideration the fact that Pilate was reticent to execute Christ to begin with, and would have found it even more ridiculous to guard Him once He was dead, he'd have probably shut the Pharisees up by letting them guard the tomb with their own temple guards who wouldn't have had jurisdiction to do so, even though the argument exists that the Pharisees may have preferred the Romans do so lest the Apostles claim the temple guards got rid of Christ should he get the better of the temple guards and get away from them anyway...wait,...what?! That's ludicrous!! The Pharisees would NEVER have believed anything about Christ really being able to rise from the dead, AND would have asked Pilate to put a bounty on the heads of the Apostles if they tried anything, so a massive "yes" goes out to the temple guards being sufficient to the Pharisees in satisfying their need to prevent any hoo-hah from taking place. All the easier for them to keel over and snooze come midnight when it stands to reason that the Resurrection of Christ would no doubt have caused a ripple effect of circumstances to be set in play: First, a rarified air causing the guards not to fall asleep but to lose consciousness until dawn; Second, His complete physical restoration and simultaneous supernatural Resurrection to life, this imprinting in a electrophysical effect his imprint on the veil and the shrowd he was covered in; Third, His actual getting up and facing the door of the sepulchre, and the bursting of the seal and ropes; Fourth, His standing and becoming newly garbed as the cork-shaped NOT round disk-shaped stone was backed off and then rolled away from the door. Look up door shapes for second temple period tombs, you'll find that only the very wealthy could afford the pocket-enclosed disk-shaped doors. Joseph of Arimathea was the Minister of Mines, and while he was more affluent than his contemporaries, he was far from wealthy. The tombs of regular people had cork-shaped doors that, yes, could be rolled after the initial shove was made. However, I doubt that Christ literally "shoved" anything. He simply willed it.

And His Resurrection? Since He said to Caiaphus, "I and My Father are One and the Same!" this means that He is not only the Redeemer, but the Creator as well. So He resurrected Himself. Niiiiiice! Thanks for the read, and God bless.

🙋 🙏

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1084978#Comment_1084978

I just read on an internet site (Wikipedia?) that a contingent of Roman soldiers would have numbered sixteen. Since they were not allowed to sit or lean on guard duty, and since falling asleep by one soldier would have garnered an unpleasant death for all sixteen guards...

This was to be a longer then a few hours duty. Sixteen sounds like a good number. Four to be on duty. Four sleeping. Four relaxing. And four goofing off. Not sure how long each shift would be before they rotated responsibilities. Only the four on duty would be expected to be fully alert. If anything came up the four relaxing could come to duty while the four goofing off could wake the ones sleeping and then all sixteen join the on duty status. [maybe]

And His Resurrection? Since He said to Caiaphus, "I and My Father are One and the Same!" this means that He is not only the Redeemer, but the Creator as well. So He resurrected Himself. Niiiiiice! Thanks for the read, and God bless.

IMHO I don’t think that he resurrected Himself. My thoughts are that the Father [in one of His few direct actions in history] accepted the Son’s sacrifice by raising Him. As I said just IMHO.

But we have zero evidence from Scripture. [And the commentaries are just the author's opinion] [[And welcome to the discussion]]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1084986#Comment_1084986

IMHO I don’t think that he resurrected Himself.

Now, David. You didn't need to IMHO. You could use your Logos, finding both (depending on the author).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1084986#Comment_1084986

IMHO I don’t think that he resurrected Himself. My thoughts are that the Father [in one of His few direct actions in history] accepted the Son’s sacrifice by raising Him. As I said just IMHO.

But we have zero evidence from Scripture.

John 10:17-18

Puddin’

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1085012#Comment_1085012

IMHO I don’t think that he resurrected Himself. My thoughts are that the Father [in one of His few direct actions in history] accepted the Son’s sacrifice by raising Him. As I said just IMHO.

But we have zero evidence from Scripture.

John 10:17-18

https://biblehub.com/john/2-19.htm

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1085202#Comment_1085202

John 10:17-18

https://biblehub.com/john/2-19.htm

Yes, BUT when you perform a Sacrifice you lose something.
The sheep dies, it loses its life, we lose the use of the sheep, its wool, its meat.
IMHO if Jesus just took back His life then He also took back the Sacrifice.
IMHO to be a Sacrifice something must be lost for all time and eternity.
We (not all but most) worship a God in three persons.
All three persons are the combined God and each of the three is individually God.
Yes, the texts were said by Jesus BUT
It comes down to exactly what was lost in the Sacrifice.
IMHO if nothing was lost there was no Sacrifice.
IMHO if the Son took back His life and nothing was lost then there was no Sacrifice
Which is why IMHO it must have been the personage that we call the Father that called the personage that we call the Son back.
When one of the personages say “I” what does “he” mean? My personage? Some other personage? All of the personages in concert? Which of the personages did Jesus mean when He said “I”?