Why did Pilate release Jesus body to Joseph?

[yaboo]

I wonder why Pilate released Jesus body to Joseph? You wouldn't think the Jews would just given the body of a man they hated and executed the honor of being buried in a private sepulchre. He would have been buried with the other criminals ...

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I wonder why Pilate released Jesus body to Joseph? You wouldn't think the Jews would just given the body of a man they hated and executed the honor of being buried in a private sepulchre. He would have been buried with the other criminals ...

To fulfill prophesy

Isaiah 53:9

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Joseph and Nicodemus were secret disciples but held positions of respectability that would have also been taken into consideration I would think

 

[Standing Up]

I wonder why Pilate released Jesus body to Joseph? You wouldn't think the Jews would just given the body of a man they hated and executed the honor of being buried in a private sepulchre. He would have been buried with the other criminals ...

It was to fulfill prophecy.

Also Pilate wasn't Jewish. Those who executed Christ on the cross then left Him as a pile of garbage. Joseph of Arimethea (Jewish) requested the body. Pilate released the body for burial, still distancing himself from the death.

 

[Ariston]

I wonder why Pilate released Jesus body to Joseph? You wouldn't think the Jews would just given the body of a man they hated and executed the honor of being buried in a private sepulchre. He would have been buried with the other criminals ...

We have two references (that I know of) to crucified persons being given a proper burial in the ancient world besides Jesus. One was the archaeological remains of a skeleton found in a tomb with a nail driven through his ankle and the other is in a reference from Josephus. One of the reasons why this account of Joseph's request is regarded as authentic by most NT scholars today is that it is unlikely that a story about Jesus' burial by one of the members of the council that were responsible for Jesus' execution would have been a Christian invention. To directly answer your question, though Jesus was executed as a criminal, he was seen by many as a holy and righteous prophet, apparently even by some of the Jewish leaders (see Jn. 3). No doubt, it's imaginable that he could have been disposed of in a shameful manner in accord with his death; its also conceivable that he exerted such an influence as to compel a figure like Joseph to give him an honorable proper Jewish burial. Historically, the burial reference in the creed (1 Cor. 15), which predates that letter and the references in all four Gospels, all attest to the authenticity of the burial. Importantly, the early Jewish rebuttal that the disciples stole the body also presupposes the burial and empty tomb. The implicit admission from Christian opponents is interesting since they were concerned with falsifying the Christian view.

"You must say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ If this comes to the governor’s ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story is still told among the Jews to this day." (Matthew 28:13-15)

 

[yaboo]

Thank you for your answers ...

In a book I was reading, it brought up a interesting possibility. And I want to investigate it further. Plus, see if anyone else had thought of this ...
Joseph (husband to Mary, father to Jesus) is last mentioned in scripture when Jesus is 12 yrs old. After that the Bible only speaks of His mother and brothers. Clearly implying that Joseph died when Jesus was young.
According to Eastern tradition, Joseph was an uncle of Mary and a relative to Jesus.
Perhaps this explains why he (Joseph) was allowed to recover the body. We know Joseph didn't approach Pilate as a disciple...he didn't even reveal that he was a follower of Jesus.
Under Jewish and Roman law, and to avoid giving offence to the chief priests, he would have had to be the next of kin ... as it was the responsibility of the nearest relative to dispose of the dead. Mary would have been too emotional and his brothers would have been too young.

 

[football5680]

The Jews were not in control of his body and the Romans couldn't care less about a dead body of somebody who they viewed as insignificant.

 

[Standing Up]

Thank you for your answers ...

In a book I was reading, it brought up a interesting possibility. And I want to investigate it further. Plus, see if anyone else had thought of this ...
Joseph (husband to Mary, father to Jesus) is last mentioned in scripture when Jesus is 12 yrs old. After that the Bible only speaks of His mother and brothers. Clearly implying that Joseph died when Jesus was young.
According to Eastern tradition, Joseph was an uncle of Mary and a relative to Jesus.
Perhaps this explains why he (Joseph) was allowed to recover the body. We know Joseph didn't approach Pilate as a disciple...he didn't even reveal that he was a follower of Jesus.
Under Jewish and Roman law, and to avoid giving offence to the chief priests, he would have had to be the next of kin ... as it was the responsibility of the nearest relative to dispose of the dead. Mary would have been too emotional and his brothers would have been too young.

Maybe. If Christ was 33 when He died, and assuming His brothers were born when He was 13, that would place the oldest at age 20. Certainly old enough to take care of a funeral. But scripture also says His brothers didn't believe Him prior to His death. They could have been happy to get rid of Him, be disassociated from the mischief maker bringing the Roman and Jewish authorities against the family. This explains better why they didn't call for the body. Good riddance they may have mused.

I've heard too Joseph of Arimethea may have been a relative. Maybe he took Christ to England when He was a boy goes the story. Joseph was rich, a tradesman, respected, on the Sanhedrin. If so, Joseph would have been known by Pilate as an authority figure and thus could grant him the body.

Would Joseph believe prior to resurrection? I suspect so. He knew the prophecies; he knew the miracles; he knew the question and answer about "this night Pascha" why is it different?

 

[Albion]

Joseph was the senior male in Jesus' family, probably Jesus' uncle.

This was the routine way of handling this matter. Obviously, the other "explanations"--that the Romans would give it to anyone, that they knew to fulfill prophesy, or that any prominent Jew would do--aren't very convincing.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I can think of many possibilities for Pilate to release Jesus' body for burial.

The primary reason is to fulfill prophesy - as Standing Up said. However, I feel it safe to presume that this thought didn't enter in Pilate's mind or decision process.

When the 'Jews' - the leaders who wanted Jesus dead - brought Jesus to Pilate, Pilate figured out very quickly what was going on. Jesus had committed no Roman breach of law, but the 'Jews' were mad about some - to Pilate - internal squabbles and intrigues.

Pilate wanted to release Jesus - having no reason to kill Jesus himself. However, the 'Jews' managed to back Pilate into a corner, then force Pilate's hand in the matter. So Pilate went along with it, probably thinking "What's one more Judean crucifixion, anyway?" But Pilate I think harbored a bit of resentment into be 'forced' in the matter.

This shows up in the 'sign' or placard put on Jesus' cross. Mark and Luke both record the inscription, "King of the Jews" as the official reason for the execution marked on the placard. This seems to have annoyed the 'Jews' who were behind the plot to kill Jesus. So they protested to Pilate about the wording of the sign, noted in John 19.

Pilate's answer reflects Pilate's hostility and resentment toward those leaders. The literal translation is “What I have written, I have written.” I think in modern English with a command of modern English, Pilate might well have said, "I already wrote it" and then ended the conversation.

So when Joseph of Arimathea asked for the body in order to bury Jesus properly, Pilate felt a pang of regret at wimping out and acceding to the execution, AND a bit of retribution toward the people working the plot. By allowing Jesus body to be buried properly, Pilate was essentially spitting in the faces of the 'Jews' who effected Jesus' death.

I think this 'feeling' shows up again when the 'Jews' ask for a guard to safeguard the body of Jesus to prevent a false resurrection. Pilate grants the request for a guard - actually a sixteen man detail - and tells them, (Matthew 27:65) “Take a guard of soldiers. Go and make it as secure as you can.” In my mind I hear an undertone of 'Good luck with that.'

Okay, much of this is conjecture. But I've been thinking about it for a good, long time now. If you don't like the train of thought, you're on your own.

 

[Albion]

So when Joseph of Arimathea asked for the body in order to bury Jesus properly, Pilate felt a pang of regret at wimping out and acceding to the execution, AND a bit of retribution toward the people working the plot. By allowing Jesus body to be buried properly, Pilate was essentially spitting in the faces of the 'Jews' who effected Jesus' death.

However, this doesn't explain why the body would be released to Joseph rather than to someone else. Even today, you don't get to show up at the funeral home and claim a body you have no right to be involved with.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I wonder why Pilate released Jesus body to Joseph? You wouldn't think the Jews would just given the body of a man they hated and executed the honor of being buried in a private sepulchre. He would have been buried with the other criminals ...

The Jews didn't have control of Jesus' body, the Romans did. Pilate, the Roman governor, simply turned the body over to whoever was willing to pay for burial so that he didn't have to. Whether that burial was honorable or not was immaterial to him.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

However, this doesn't explain why the body would be released to Joseph rather than to someone else. Even today, you don't get to show up at the funeral home and claim a body you have no right to be involved with.

True, but I really don't know where you're getting the notion that Joseph of Arimathea was related to Jesus. I think Pilate would have had many reasons to not want to deal with the body, but as to why it was turned over to Joseph or Arimathea specifically, I think we have to just say non liquet. We just don't know.

 

[Standing Up]

True, but I really don't know where you're getting the notion that Joseph of Arimathea was related to Jesus. I think Pilate would have had many reasons to not want to deal with the body, but as to why it was turned over to Joseph or Arimathea specifically, I think we have to just say non liquet. We just don't know.

One of those traditions we all hear about.

 

[Rick Otto]

The Jews didn't have control of Jesus' body, the Romans did. Pilate, the Roman governor, simply turned the body over to whoever was willing to pay for burial so that he didn't have to. Whether that burial was honorable or not was immaterial to him.

That sounds most plausible.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I wonder why Pilate released Jesus body to Joseph? You wouldn't think the Jews would just given the body of a man they hated and executed the honor of being buried in a private sepulchre. He would have been buried with the other criminals ...

Yhvh watched over and orchestrated everything to Perfectly fulfill Prophecy of Scripture.

 

[keith99]

The Jews didn't have control of Jesus' body, the Romans did. Pilate, the Roman governor, simply turned the body over to whoever was willing to pay for burial so that he didn't have to. Whether that burial was honorable or not was immaterial to him.

It was also a political hot potato. So long as the hand off seemed to be in good faith it means neither he nor Rome could be blamed for mistreating the Jews. Rebellions are not good for business.