The back-story is here. The collection is here. You can subscribe over there. >>>

71. Who buried Jesus? Matthew 27:57-60, Mark 15:43-46, Luke 23:50-53 vs. John 19:38-42 vs. Acts 13:27-29

The first three references tell the same part of the same story, so I’m only quoting Matthew for the sake of brevity.

Matthew 27:57-60
Now when evening had come, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who himself had also become a disciple of Jesus. This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be given to him. When Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his new tomb which he had hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a large stone against the door of the tomb, and departed.

John 19:38-42
After this, Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took the body of Jesus. And Nicodemus, who at first came to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. Then they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury. Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. So there they laid Jesus, because of the Jews’ Preparation Day, for the tomb was nearby.

Acts 13:27-29
For those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they did not know Him, nor even the voices of the Prophets which are read every Sabbath, have fulfilled them in condemning Him. And though they found no cause for death in Him, they asked Pilate that He should be put to death. Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb.

Matthew, Mark and Luke tell us about a rich man named Joseph, of Arimathea, who prepared Jesus’ body and laid Him in his own tomb.

John doesn’t change the story, he merely adds Nicodemus. Similar to our conversation about “blind Bartimæus” and his friend, just because one account (or in this case, three) doesn’t mention a person in the story doesn’t mean that person wasn’t there. It just means the writer didn’t deem it necessary to mention him.

Why might Matthew, Mark and Luke have omitted Nicodemus? I can think of a few things to consider. 

John is the only gospel writer who mentions Nicodemus. For any of the other three to mention Nicodemus here, they would have to introduce and explain who he was, which probably didn’t seem important in the midst of recounting the death and burial of their Messiah.

Second, it is widely accepted that John wrote his gospel much later than the first three – up to a few decades later. This presents more options.

Maybe the other gospel writers were protecting Nicodemus by not mentioning him. Both times that John mentions Nicodemus, his favor toward Jesus is always checked by his fear of the religious authorities. It could be that he died or grew bold in his faith by the time John wrote his gospel, so there was no further need for concealment.

It could also very well be that the first three gospel writers didn’t know about Nicodemus’ contribution to Jesus’ burial when they wrote their accounts. He was obviously a quiet, humble man, and probably not, in the days that followed Jesus’ execution, bragging about how he helped Joseph bury Jesus. And I doubt anyone asked. The ones who cared that Jesus was laying in a tomb, had recently watched their entire reality fall apart in front of them. No one was thinking about the details of His burial

Then, when He miraculously rose from the dead, it was the furthest thing from anyone’s mind. It’s not unreasonable to think that it could have easily been decades before it became widely known, or even seemed important, that Nicodemus brought the myrrh. And it wouldn’t be the only circumstance wherein John’s gospel provides more details than the first three, details that may have been learned after Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote their accounts.

And Acts 13 … is weak. This is a poor excuse to add another red line to the graph. Are we really supposed to believe that every “they” in those two verses refers to – whom? “Those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers”? Every man and woman who lived in Jerusalem condemned Jesus? Everyone asked for Him to be crucified? They all beat and humiliated Him? Everyone, the entire population of Jerusalem, collectively took Jesus from the cross and laid Him in a tomb?

The only people who could have condemned Jesus were the religious leaders called to an illegal, midnight meeting. The next day it was a mob – led by some of those leaders – who requested His execution. Later, it was Roman soldiers who tortured and killed Him. The same “they” didn’t do more than one of those things.

The same Luke who wrote the gospel, wrote Acts, and in this passage he is quoting one of Paul’s sermons. They are not confused. Vague terms are being used to contrast man’s role in Jesus’ death with the Father’s role in His resurrection.

Short answer: Joseph of Arimathea, with the help of Nicodemus