Matthew 28:12

‘And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave much money to the soldiers.'

As a result the Chief Priests called an emergency meeting of some of the Sanhedrin in order to discuss what they should do. The conclusion that they came to was that they should bribe the soldiers to lie on their behalf, and to this end they gave them much money. They were not to be bought cheaply.

There is disagreement about whether these soldiers were Roman soldiers or Temple servants. There are a number of things in favour of their being Temple servants.

* Firstly they had reported back to the Chief Priests and not to Pilate. That could also have been true of Roman soldiers who had been allocated to act on the Chief Priests behalf, but it is suggestive. Indeed there is a good case for suggesting that had Roman soldiers been involved they would simply have sealed up the tomb and pretended that nothing had happened, hoping that no one else knew (they would have nothing to lose by doing so, and everything to gain). They would be in a dreadful fix and would consider it quite probable that no one would look in it again for a long time, by which time no one would know when it had happened. And they would not have considered the possibility of a resurrection. It was only Jews who would have an interest in what the empty tomb might mean, and would probably want to report back what had happened, who would behave in the way described here. (Compare how continuing interest was also restricted to Jews - Matthew 28:13).

* Secondly they were prepared to admit to neglect of duty in return for a bribe. It is doubtful if a Roman soldier would ever have dared to do such a thing. His punishment would have been too severe. To suggest that such a crime would be overlooked by the military is unlikely indeed. Nor would any such soldier have wanted to spread a rumour around pointing to his misdemeanour. It would be asking for trouble, for it would certainly get back to their commanders. However, for supporters of the Chief Priests, the spreading of such rumours at their request would have been considered a good thing, although they would have wanted well paying for their trouble.

* Thirdly, if they had been Roman soldiers who were considered to have failed in their duty by falling asleep it is questionable whether the Chief Priests could have spoken with such confidence about getting them excused, for it would be a military matter, and such behaviour was looked on very seriously and was usually punishable by death. But it is quite conceivable that they would have confidence that they could obtain pardon for their own men who had failed, even though they were temporarily acting on Pilate's behalf. They could do so on the grounds that they were not used to doing such guard duty and were exhausted after the events of the previous days and nights of being involved in monitoring the pilgrims over the feast days.

* Fourthly, only ‘some' of the soldiers reported back. This suggests that the whole contingent consisted of at least six or seven, if not more. It is quite frankly doubtful if six or seven Roman soldiers would be allocated to such an unimportant task. It was not the Romans who were fearful of what would happen, it was the Chief Priests.

Against this idea of their being Temple guards is that they are called ‘soldiers'. But it would seem probable that armed guards in the Temple would often popularly be called soldiers by people like Matthew, just as Herod would have his own soldiers. Soldiers were not limited to the Roman army. The other point that may be raised is as to why if they were the High Priest's soldiers they were accountable to Pilate. But we have to recognise that the Chief Priests had made a commitment to guard the tomb. If it ever came to his attention that they had failed they would therefore be accountable to Pilate however little he might in fact have cared about the matter, for he was the one on whom any blame would finally fall.