Sunday, April 12, 2020

Disposing of Dead Bodies


New York City officials have hired contract laborers to bury terminal victims of COVID-19. Normally, some 25 bodies of unclaimed corpses are interred each week by jail inmates working on the island. That number began increasing as the new coronavirus spread rapidly. Now, there are about 25 bodies a day, five days a week buried on the island.

The proper disposal of dead bodies is humane, civil and ensures the security of the deceased. This form of security is necessary for forensic purposes and also to dissuade the practice of selling dead bodies for dissection or lectures in Anatomy.

From ancient times, tombstones and coffins contained inscriptions warning offenders not to interfere with the contents. Tampering with the dead was a dishonor to the memories of the dead. In addition, the habit encouraged the practice of necromancy – communicating with the dead.

In the New Testament, after the death of Jesus, the Jewish authorities found a new reason to enforce this ban of tampering with dead bodies. The Jewish authorities realized that the tomb where the body of Jesus had been placed was empty – His body could not be found.
                          
Therefore, according to the New Testament record, the Jewish authorities devised a plan to bribe the soldiers who were on duty to guard the tomb. The soldiers were to testify that “His disciples came during the night and stole Him away while we were asleep” (Matthew 28:13).

The Roman soldiers accepted the bribe, thus implicating the disciples of Jesus. However, nowhere in history do we read where the disciples were charged for stealing the dead body of Jesus. Obviously, such a charge would require the prosecution to produce as irrefutable evidence the stolen body.

In his volume, New Testament History, the late Professor F.F. Bruce tells the story of Roman Emperor Claudius and his edict to forbid tampering with dead bodies. This edict was issued within fifteen years after the resurrection of Jesus:

“It is my pleasure that sepulchers and tombs, which have been erected as solemn memorials of ancestors or children or relatives, shall remain undisturbed in perpetuity... Let no one disturb them on any account. Otherwise it is my will that capital sentence be passed upon such person for the crime of tomb-spoilation.”

That edict of the Roman Emperor Claudius has been housed in the Cabinet des Médailles in France since 1878. The inscription is said to have been “sent from Nazareth” to Paris. The writing-style on the inscription belongs to the earlier half of the first century.

The date and the source of the inscription leave a few unanswered questions. For example, why would the Emperor of a region covering one million square miles be so interested in establishing an edict for a region covering six square miles? And that question leads logically to another - was there a presumed incident of “body snatching” in that area to warrant such an edict? I find it interesting that the Roman Emperor’s edict may have come from Nazareth, the location of Jesus’ family home.

I believe the existence of this document suggests that some 15 years after the resurrection of Jesus, authorities were still grappling with matters surrounding the empty tomb. What options could best explain that profound predicament?  Was the charge of theft by the disciples possible? Such a stealing charge would constitute a serious crime, attracting even a death sentence.

As asked earlier, why didn’t the authorities arrest them if they felt the disciples committed a crime? In addition, the crucifixion had taken place in Jerusalem, some eighty miles away from Nazareth. Would they have disposed of the corpse in Jerusalem or traveled with it for a few days in the Near Eastern hot temperatures? Preposterous!

What would seem to be the best explanation for the missing body of Jesus, is the one recorded in the most reliable document in ancient literature – the New Testament. The New Testament writers contended that Jesus, who was crucified, came back to life on the third day following His death.

The New Testament writers further contended that for forty days the resurrected Jesus was seen by hundreds of persons in a variety of settings – in small groups, in personal encounters and even on one occasion by more than 500 persons at the same time.

Logically then, if those records were incorrect, why weren’t they challenged? Or, why did the authorities not locate the corpse and arrest the disciples for tampering with a dead body? Nothing like that was necessary because the evidence of the resurrected Jesus was overwhelming and irrefutable.
                                                                                                                                         
The resurrected Jesus was seen and heard for more than five weeks after the Roman authorities certified his death and burial. The Apostle Peter testified concerning these realities when he declared “God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact” (Acts 2:32). Did you know that because of the resurrection of Jesus, Christians who die as victims of COVID-19, will also experience resurrection?
Wow! That must bring a sense of hope to those who grieve.  


5 comments:

Teddy A. Jones said...

Dr. Corbin thanks for sharing this article with me. Quite creative there working the current reality of the mass burials due to Covid-19 with the resurrection of Jesus and its solidity.

DaunaCor said...

You are welcome Teddy. We are so near and yet so far. Be safe.

Brendan Bain said...

Thanks for bringing the information from your research to our attention, David. The resurrection of the Lord Jesus does give us the hope of eternal life through faith in Him.

David P said...

This bits of "coincidences" do raise some pertinent questions about those who seek to disclaim the historicity of the Gospels. Over the years, the more I read and understand is the more certain I have of the basis of my faith - the resurrection of Jesus. Thanks again for this.

Unknown said...

Thanks for the perspective; one that would be readily acceptable even at any Supreme Court debate. Hopefully we’ll succeed in bring it to the nay-sayers.

Culture Chest E-News