Why was the stone moved?

In preparing for ministry this Easter I came across some previously unthought of ideas through my reading.

One is concerning the size of the rock that covered the tomb of Jesus. One source claimed that the entrance to the tomb was approximately 4-5 feet high (Peter actually went into the tomb, presumably bending over as John had to bend over to look into the tomb - John 20:3-9). This source estimated that the weight of the stone would be of the order of one and a half to two tons and that there is a variant reading to Mark 16:4 so that it reads "And when He was laid there, he (Joseph) put against the tomb a stone which twenty men could not roll away."

Is anyone aware of this variant reading? I will look further into this when I return from holidays. But I do note that Cranfield writes of this verse, "The MS. k has here quite an extensive gloss of an obviously legendary character".

Anyway, a very large stone would explain the question of the women, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb? "(Mark 16:3). Furthermore, it would concur with the reference of Joseph of Arimathea who was a 'member of the Council' and clearly a man of means (cf Isaiah 53:9).

Who moved the stone? Matthew 28:1-4 records that an angel of the Lord rolled back the stone. The verb apokulio is used here (also in Mark and Luke). Someone has suggested that this verb indicates that the stone had to be rolled up an incline? Anyone got any thoughts on this?

I think a more interesting question is - why was the stone moved?

We know that the resurrected body of Jesus was not bound by walls. Jesus could appear and stand among His disciples even though they had hidden themselves in a room (John 20:19ff). So imagine this scenario: On the third day the resurrected Jesus passes through the stone at the entrance of the tomb and reveals Himself to the disciples and the women. At first, they don't recognise Him but He eats in their presence as per Luke 24:36-42 and invited them to inspect His wounds as per John 20:24-28). They are eventually convinced of the resurrection. Then as reports of His resurrection begin to circle the Jewish authorities are mobilised into action. The Roman guard is asked to remove the seal and then 'roll away' the stone. But it will not be an 'empty tomb'. They will then see no body but just the grave clothes lying exactly as John has recorded it - John 20:6,7). This would then be more than ample evidence for the fact of bodily resurrection.

Why was the stone moved?

I am reminded of John 12:28 where the people around Jesus heard a voice form heaven "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again". Jesus explained, "This voice was for your benefit, not mine" (John 12:30). I wonder if the reason the stone was moved was for the benefit of the disciples and the women. That is, so that Peter and John (and others) could see for themselves the 'empty tomb' and then, more readily, accept the reality of the resurrection when they met the resurrected Jesus. Had the stone not been rolled away would the disciples have accepted the fact of the resurrection (consider, for example, the reaction of the two that journeyed to Emmaus with Jesus)? Just a thought.

Have a blessed Easter!