Luke 24

CHAPTER XXIV

The record of the resurrection of the crucified dead body of Jesus constitutes the climax in all four Gospels. Yea, more than a climax. All that these Gospels record in the rest of their chapters heads straight for this final chapter on the risen and glorified Lord. Take away this chapter and the facts it records, and you cancel all else that is of any worth in all the previous chapters. Read 1 Cor. 15:12–20. The Christian religion stands and falls with the resurrection of the body that was laid into Joseph’s tomb on Good Friday.

Each evangelist tells the story in his own way with an eye to his readers for whom he has planned his entire record. When we try to trace the reasons each had for including just what he did we are on ground that is somewhat uncertain and should not be too insistent. Instead of becoming critical, we should be grateful for the records we have—most of us wish we had much more.

We have four records that stand as four witnesses. When one reads these Gospels, the one attitude of even the most critical reader must be that the reports are true in even every detail. This attitude is unaffected by text-criticism, which, however, belongs only in the hands of scholars who are fully competent for this type of work. Their approved results are most precious. What pertains to the body of each Gospel pertains in particular also to the section of each on the resurrection. No part of the testimony that is offered dare be discredited on any subjective or dogmatical grounds.

Whether or not an individual reader is able to fit all the pieces in the records together means nothing as to the truth and the correctness of these pieces themselves. What one man cannot do proves nothing in regard to more competent men. We are also ready to wait until some points are cleared up and to content ourselves to leave some problems unsolved—few as they are at most. The faith of the church is based on these great chapters and continues triumphantly to confess: “The third day he rose again from the dead!”

Luke 24:1

1 But on the first day with reference to the Sabbath, at deep dawn, they came to the tomb, bearing what aromatic spices they prepared.

Δέ is to be construed with the μέν that occurs in the preceding sentence. This balance is ignored in our chapter division, see the R. V. The dative τῇμιᾷτῶνσαββάτων may be translated “on the first day of the week,” but to τὰσάββατα does not mean “week” but only “Sabbath.” Since they had no names for the weekdays the Jews designated them with reference to the Sabbath; thus “on the first (day) with reference to the Sabbath,” i. e., following it. The plural is frequently used in the names for the festivals, and this same usage was applied to the Sabbath, the plural τὰσάββατα means only the one Sabbath. Matthew’s “very early in the morning” (A.

V., the R. V. is incorrect); John’s “when it was yet dark”; and Luke’s “at deep dawn” (genitive of the time within) agree most perfectly and do not conflict with Mark’s “at the rising of the sun.” Since they started before dawn, while it was yet dark, the sun was rising about the time the women reached the tomb.

Why so early? For the best of reasons even as all the evangelists note the earliness. Jesus had been dead since Friday; bodies start to decompose very quickly in that climate, wherefore also the dead are buried the same day, or, if they die too late for sepulture, the next day. All haste was necessary in the minds of these women, even hours counted if they wanted to find Jesus’ body in a condition that made it possible still to handle it. The subject continues from 23:55, “the women,” as the feminine particple “bearing” shows. They came to the tomb laden with the aromatic spices they had prepared.

The Greek aorist “did prepare” does not care to express the antecedence in time (R. 841) as does our past perfect “had prepared”; note also the incorporation of the antecedent aromata into the relative clause. Luke names some of the women in verse 10.

2, 3) And they did find the stone having been rolled away from the tomb. And they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.

Luke writes about this stone as being something that was quite well known. Theophilus knew how tombs like that were usually closed and, when necessary, were opened. So Luke reports only the great, significant fact that the women found that the stone had been rolled away from the tomb, which means that it was not in its groove (see 23:53) so that it could be wheeled back again into its place before the door but had been rolled clear out of its groove, “away from the tomb” as if a mighty force had hurled it away. The great stone lay flat. Luke says nothing about the earthquake that had occurred while the women were on the way out to the tomb and nothing about the angel who had touched the great stone and thereby made it roll away from the tomb to lie flat on the ground.

Note that what “they did find” and what “they did not find” are placed side by side. The body was gone. The tomb was empty. Already these facts speak volumes. Before the angel opened the tomb, the body which had been reanimated by its spirit and in the same instant had become glorified, passed unseen out of the grave wrappings and through the solid stone and left the tomb empty save for the grave wrappings which now lay as they had been wrapped but were flat because the body had gone out of them. The angel removed the stone to show that the tomb was empty.

No evangelist attempts to describe the resurrection proper; it had no witnesses. It is the direct opposite of the ascension. The apostles saw the beginning of the latter but not the end when the cloud enfolded Jesus and he was transferred timelessly into heaven; no one saw the beginning of the former, but they all saw the end when the living, glorified body appeared to them again and again.

All those paintings which portray the glorious Savior coming out of the opened door of the tomb while the Roman guard flees in dismay at the sight of him are the artist’s imagination, and the facts should be carefully taught. Silently, invisibly, wondrously, gloriously the living body passed out through the rock. This mode of being is well described in Concordia Triglotta, 1004, 100: “The incomprehensible, spiritual mode, according to which he neither occupies nor vacates space, but penetrates all creatures, wherever he pleases; as, to make an imperfect comparison, my sight penetrates and is in air, light, or water, and does not occupy or vacate space; as a sound or tone penetrates and is in air or water or board or wall, and also does not occupy or vacate space; likewise, as light and heat penetrate and are in air, water, glass, crystal, and the like; and much more of the like. This mode he used when he rose from the closed sepulcher, and passed through the closed door, and in the bread and wine in the Holy Supper.”

The resurrection marks a new era. Heaven and earth are now joined, for Christ, our Savior, is risen. The wall of separation has fallen; God is reconciled to men; the sacrifice of the Son has been accepted by the Father. This is the supreme Easter reality. The genitive “of the Lord Jesus” is lacking in so few texts that the R. V. should not have added its marginal note. In Luke’s Gospel Κύριος occurs repeatedly as a title for Jesus from 7:13 onward (see this passage), and the only new feature is that “Jesus” is added.

Luke 24:4

4 And it came to pass while they were perplexed about this, lo, two men suddenly stood beside them in dazzling apparel. And they having become frightened and bowing their faces to the ground, they said to them: Why are you seeking the living one with the dead? He is not here but did arise! Remember how he made utterance to you, yet being in Galilee, saying that it is necessary that the Son of man be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise again.

See 1:8 on ἐγένετο to mark an important event, likewise on ἐντῷ with an infinitive for “while.” Luke alone testifies that the women were first allowed to see that the body was gone, that the wrappings were lying flat. Compare John 20:5–7 and note how in Mark the angel bids the women to look at the place where they laid him—there was something that was most astonishing to see, namely those empty, eloquent gravebands. Then there arose the great perplexity of the women; notice how soon after this Peter and John were affected by the same sight. Matthew and Mark say only that the angel spoke to the women and mention only one angel because they are thinking of the speaker alone. With an exclamation, “lo,” Luke tells us more, namely that there were two angels (John 20:12), and that they suddenly stood beside the women in the tomb, ἐπέστησαν, which is used with reference to the unexpected coming upon someone. We take it that they were there all the time, and that their presence was now all at once made visible to the perplexed women.

Why anyone should find a discrepancy in the number of the angels is hard to see. Even in Luke’s account the plural “they said” does not mean that both recited the words, but that one spoke for both. Luke has “men,” ἐπέστησαν; Mark, “a young man,” νενίσκος; the others, “angels,” ἄγγελοι. This point should not be overlooked; these angels appeared in the form of men, of men in the full vigor of youth. Though they are sexless, this is the form they took. The Scriptures know of no lady angels or baby angels.

When God sends angels in this form, men instantly recognize them as what they are. How could it be otherwise! When God wants to reveal he reveals. “In dazzling or flashing apparel” at once brings out the heavenly character of these messengers; look at 9:29, the best analogy, which has the same word for dazzling.

Luke 24:5

5 No wonder that fear came over the women (aorist participle, the fear set in), and that they kept inclining their faces to the ground (present participle to indicate what they did again and again, every time they tried to look up). The angels deliver their message. Luke omits “stop fearing!” and at once reports the Easter news itself. “Why are you seeking the living one as in company with (μετά) the dead?” This is not a rebuke; it reveals what the women are doing in their great, blind ignorance, brings this home to them. The question stresses the very thoughts of these women, all their heaviness of heart about the dead body of Jesus, their desire to finish the burying with spices and perfumes, the tears they expected to shed when they left him as dead and in company with all the dead—and through all this murk flashes the one word “the living one,” one intense Easter ray. “Living one, living one!”—unbelievable, yet angels attest the word. And they had spices, etc., for one who was dead! One of the strange facts is that no evangelist ever mentions what became of those spices on which so much care and love were spent, those spices but for which the women would not be here.

Luke 24:6

6 The texts already mentioned omit: “he is not here, but did rise,” but on insufficient authority to cast doubt on the genuineness of these words. “He is not here” points to the obvious fact. Mark reports that all the women were bidden to look at the place that was now empty. But this negative is intended only to make the positive stand out, the simple aorist to express the fact as a fact: “on the contrary (ἀλλά), he did arise.” The form ἠγέρθη is passive, “he was raised,” but many such passives are used without having the passive sense (R. 817). This is generally assumed here although the passive of this verb occurs also in the purely passive sense. Note the active sense of ἀναστῆναι, “to rise again,” in v. 7. If one should insist on translating ἠγέρθη “he was raised,” we know of no way to refute him.

Both are possible, and either would be in place here. The resurrection is called an act of God: “raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father” (ἠγέρθη), Rom. 6:4; 8:11; Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 26:32; it is also called an act of Jesus himself, Mark 9:31; Luke 18:33 (ἀναστήσεται). Both are true even as all the opera ad extra are communa. The Greek uses the aorist to express a very recent past act, “did arise,” whereas we require the perfect “has arisen” (R. 845).

Luke has the fullest account as to how the angel reminded the women of the words that Jesus had uttered in Galilee. “Yet being in Galilee” means as early as that and, of course, thus refers to all the utterances that were made since that time. Those were true prophetic utterances, and their truth is now attested by the literal fulfillment. But the women as well as the apostles themselves had not understood those utterances literally and had allowed them to pass from their minds.

Luke 24:7

7 The angel quotes them in indirect discourse from 9:22, 44; Matt. 16:21; 17:22, 23; Mark 8:31; 9:31. See 5:24 on Son of man; and δεῖ indicates the divine necessity of love that is back of the plan of redemption. The angel recalls the three essential acts: the deliverance into the hands of men, the death by crucifixion, and what the women now see with their eyes, “and on the third day rise again,” i. e., rise up to life again. But not to the former life in lowliness, those linen wrappings speak of a miraculous passing out of the body—rise again glorified and in the state we call that of exaltation.

8, 9) And they remembered his utterances, and having returned from the tomb, they reported all these things to the Eleven and to all the rest. Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary of James, and the others with them kept telling these things to the apostles. And these utterances appeared in their sight as silly talk, and they were disbelieving them.

This flood of remembering was far more than merely a recalling of those utterances; it was a recalling of them and a combining them with the realities. They had seen Jesus being delivered into the hands of men and all that this meant, they had seen Jesus die on the cross, and they were now with the same actuality and reality seeing on this the third day that he had indeed arisen. Since they had all this literal fulfillment before them, the prophecy stood out wondrously in their minds. Matthew describes how they met Jesus himself on their return, but Luke hastens to add at once that the women made report to the Eleven and to the rest, i. e., to all the other disciples. We should not imagine that all these were assembled together and received this report in a body. We know that Mary Magdalene found only Peter and John, and that Thomas was absent from the group for a week. The report reached all those who are mentioned as the news could be carried to them, and we may well suppose that it brought about a gradual gathering, at least for the discussion of this report.

Luke 24:10

10 Not until this high point in the story is reached does Luke record the names of some of the women. In 23:55 and in all that follows we learn only that these women were “out of Galilee.” We now hear that the foremost among them was Mary Magdalene. As Peter was the leader among the Twelve, the men, so “Magdalene Mary” was the leader among the women. In regard to prominence she stands out like Peter, in her love she is like John. See 8:2, 3 on her and on Joanna. The second Mary in Luke’s record is identified by a reference to her husband Clopas or to her sons James and Joses, Luke uses only James for this purpose.

She was the Virgin’s sister or half-sister (John 19:25). When Luke writes, “and the rest with them kept telling,” etc., he uses brevity by telling us about the presence of these other women and how they joined with the ones who are named in a repeated telling of these things. The news was so astounding, the things they had seen and heard so mighty and true, that they would of their own accord go over the story again and again; but they were surely also questioned most closely and thus had to relate the occurrences again and again.

The evangelists are always brief, Luke very much so in this account. But that fact draws attention to every repetition that may appear in such a succinct record. Luke states with an aorist that the women made a report to the Eleven and then with an imperfect states once more that they kept telling the apostles these things. Why the double statement? Because the Eleven were the apostles, and because as the apostles they should have been most ready to believe. They had heard the detailed prophecies from Jesus’ lips more often than the others; John relates at length what Jesus said to them on Thursday night. Yes, if anyone, these eleven apostles should have believed. On them the women centered their message as the angel and Jesus, too, had told them to do.

Luke 24:11

11 This is a case where καί adds an adversative fact coordinately. All these utterances seemed in their eyes (“before them” as judges) as λῆρος, nonsense, the wild talk of a pack of hysterical women. In this instance the neuter plural subject is construed with a plural verb in the Greek. This usually means more than that the writer may choose either a singular or a plural verb. These were utterances of so many individual witnesses, each testimony counted for itself, and thus all the testimonies formed a true plural and not merely an aggregate. This plural verb quietly reminds us also that in the case of the Jews creditable testimony required at least two or three corroborating witnesses. And we may take it that for this reason, too, Luke actually named three such witnesses in v. 10.

But it was all in vain as far as the apostles were concerned: “they were disbelieving them” (αὐταῖς, feminine, the women), the imperfect expresses continuous disbelief. Do we feel like chiding the apostles for this long disbelief in the face of such witnesses? Let us note rather that the claim that they were common, credulous people who were ready to believe what careful men would today not think of believing, breaks down completely. These men were quite the opposite. Whereas they should have believed they disbelieved. They held out until the last. Even John must be included, for his believing which is stated in John 20:8 is heavily qualified in v. 9 so that Luke cannot register him as an exception.

Luke 24:12

12 The texts which have the two omissions that were already noted (in v. 3 and 6) and a few others of no consequence omit also this entire verse. Text critics are inclined to reject this verse as not being genuine, not, however, because of the lack of textual evidence, which is quite too favorable for that, but because of the presence of words in this verse which appear also in John 20:2–10. They think it more probable that this verse was interpolated from John’s account than that John should have borrowed expressions from this verse in Luke. On textual grounds this verse must therefore remain. As to the verbal agreements it should be noted that in a number of instances in these last chapters Luke plainly matches statements that are made in John, statements that are not found in Matthew and in Mark. The view that the agreement with John is too close in this verse is in our judgment too subjective. John did have Luke before him, and no one will be able to prove why he should not have appropriated words from Luke in his own far fuller account, especially also since in so many instances John supplements the synoptists and makes it plain that he does so by using some of the very words which they used in their more fragmentary accounts.

Moreover, Peter having arisen, ran to the tomb and, having stooped down, sees the linen bands alone; and went away to himself, wondering at what had occurred.

Luke’s appended statement which disregards the connection of time is precisely one of the incidents that John would want to relate in full, the more so since he himself ran out to the tomb together with Peter. So we learn that this happened at once after Mary Magdalene hastened back from the tomb to bring help because she thought that the prostrate position of the stone indicated a rifling of the tomb. She found only Peter and John, and both ran to the garden as John relates. But all that Luke wants to report is that Peter, when he stooped and looked into the open tomb, with his own eyes saw the linen bands—”alone,” emptied of the body, the undisturbed windings lying flat. Astounding sight!

Luke uses the vivid present tense: “he sees,” yes, sees and sees. How could the body have left those bands except through a miracle? What was the miracle—what was it? But even this direct, visual evidence made Peter only wonder and wonder as he went away by himself “at the thing that has happened” in the tomb. So slow was even a Peter to believe. It is Luke’s intention to make this plain. The phrase πρὸςἑαυτόν causes trouble. It does not mean “to his home” (R. V.) although the construction with ἀπῆλθε is correct; “in himself” (A. V.) regards the phrase as modifying “wondering,” which would make it too emphatic in the Greek because it would then have the forward position. It simply means: “he went away to or by himself, wondering,” etc., B.-P. 1140.

Luke 24:13

13 And lo, two of them on that day were going to a village distant sixty stadia from Jerusalem, for which as a name Emmaus.

This interjection “lo” pertains to the entire account which is so astonishing in many ways, for it was not at all wonderful that two of them should be going to Emmaus on that Sunday. The periphrastic imperfect pictures the two on their way. Luke is precise regarding the name of the village and its distance from Jerusalem. Both points have precipitated much discussion and research which is complicated by the insertion of ἐκατόν, “a hundred,” in important texts, which makes the distance 160 stadia. The details of this discussion need not occupy us here. The reading “60 stadia” is correct.

Nicopolis cannot be the village intended, for it was not a “village” (Luke) but a considerable city prior even to Christ’s time and was located 176 stadia from Jerusalem, which figure exceeds even the 160 stadia that are found in some of the texts, to say nothing about the assured 60. It seems that “a hundred” was inserted on the supposition that Luke had in mind Nicopolis, the old Amwas. To go to and to return to this city would require over twelve hours, a journey that cannot be fitted into Luke’s account. Several places bore the name Emmaus. Many have thought of the ’Ammaous mentioned in Josephus, Wars, 7, 6, 6, but the correct reading in Josephus Isaiah 30 and not 60 stadia. We thus cannot locate the place.

A Greek στάδιον = 600 feet, and this word is declined also as a masculine, B.-D. 49. The supposition seems warranted that the two disciples had their home in Emmaus and were returning to it toward evening.

Luke 24:14

14 And they were conversing with each other concerning all these things that had happened. And it came to pass while they were conversing and questioning together, Jesus himself having drawn near, began to go with them. But their eyes were held not to recognize him.

Ὁμιλεῖν is the regular verb for “to converse,” and the subject that occupied these two was not merely the report of the resurrection but all that had occurred in these days (v. 18).

Luke 24:15

15 On “it came to pass” and “while,” as Lukan favorite expressions, see 1:8. The former marks the importance of what came to pass. We see that the two disciples were also questioning together besides conversing, neither of them was able to get any farther. Then, from a few paces to the rear of them, Jesus himself drew up and began to walk together with them in the most natural way as one traveller joins a pair of others on the road. This is the first appearance of the risen Savior that Luke records. During these forty days after the resurrection Jesus came and went as he desired. So he was here on the road where he wished to be and with a few strides easily caught up with these travellers.

Luke 24:16

16 Luke explains that the eyes of the two disciples “were held” so that they did not recognize Jesus. The passive verb connotes an agent, namely God, just as the passive does in v. 31: their eyes “were completely opened.” In Mark 16:12 it is stated that Jesus appeared “in a different form” (μορφή), which means different from the form in which he appeared to Mary Magdalene in the garden of the tomb (Mark 16:9). Throughout these forty days each appearance was naturally made in such a way as to fit the time, the place, and the persons concerned. In the present instance Jesus must have appeared as another traveller. But even then he would have been recognized quickly had the eyes of the two disciples not been held. The recognition was instantaneous in v. 31.

The infinitive with τοῦ may be regarded in three ways: to express purpose: “that they should not know him” (our versions); to express result: “so that they did not know him”; or as an ablative: were held “from knowing him,” R. 1171 makes μή redundant. We regard it as expressing “result” and consider the ablative the least likely construction.

Luke 24:17

17 And he said to them, What are these statements which you are exchanging with each other as you are walking? And they stopped, sullen. And answering, one, by name Cleopas, said to him, Thou, dost thou dwell as an outsider all alone in Jerusalem and didst not come to know the things that took place in her in these days?

The question of Jesus seems to imply that it was put after Jesus had for a while listened to the animated discussion that continued after he drew up with the two. They were in the midst of it, and both “questioning” (v. 15) and “exchanging” imply that each disciple was putting questions at the other which neither could answer. So the inquiry of Jesus was most natural when he at a convenient moment asked what these λόγοι or statements were about. We should not regard this as pretense on the part of Jesus. As is the case in other instances when he asked about things that he himself knew well, so this question had the simple purpose of making these disciples state their problem to him as directly as possible in order that he might solve it for them in a perfectly objective way. His question looked forward to what he intended to say after he had received the answer.

But its first effect was that the two disciples stopped in their tracks and looked at Jesus with displeased surprise and astonishment: σκυθρωποί means with darkened faces, hence “sullen.” “Sad” is not enough, and “perplexed” (R., Tr.) is incorrect; M.-M. 580 have “of a gloomy countenance.” The A. V. translates the reading “are” in place of “they stopped” and so draws the adjective into the question: “as ye walk and are sad.” The better reading is “they stood,” i. e., stopped. It is this stopping that lends force to the adjective “sullen.”

Luke 24:18

18 This interpretation helps us to understand the answer which was given by Cleopas, which was really not an answer to Jesus’ question but an incredulous, exclamatory question because of what appeared like impossible ignorance on Jesus’ part. The verb παροικεῖς means to dwell as a πάροικος, as one who is not a native but has come in from the outside, and is followed by the accusative of the place: “to inhabit Jerusalem as one having come from the outside.” A Gentile might be referred to thus, but the verb here refers to a Jew who had been born and reared elsewhere but was now residing in the Holy City. Mere temporary sojourn (M.-M.) is not necessarily implied.

The adjective μόνος, “alone,” helps to bring out the idea: an outsider living in Jerusalem so entirely off to himself and “all alone,” without contact with anybody who might keep him posted on the big things that were going on in the city. Cleopas intends to ask whether it was possible that Jerusalem had harbored such a person. Σύ is emphatic: “Thou, art thou” such a person? The aorist ἔγνως is ingressive: “not come to know” all that occurred in the city during these last days. So completely are Cleopas and his companion taken up with these occurrences that he thinks that everybody who is living in Jerusalem must know all about them and could not be living so alone as to escape this knowledge.

We can only guess how Jesus made the impression cn Cleopas that he was not a native Jerusalemite. Many foreign-born Jews gravitated to the Holy City and became permanent residents there. Jesus perhaps retained his Galilean accent. Is Cleopas to be identified with the Clopas who is mentioned in John 19:25? We hear “yes” and “no” and receive nothing decisive either way even if the names are only variant pronunciations, which is most likely the case. Luke mentions the name so incidentally that we cannot safely conclude anything in regard to the importance of the man. The view that these two disciples belonged to the Seventy is a guess, likewise that the other was Nathanael, Bartholomew, Peter, some other Simon, or James the less, that father and son were thus going to their home in Emmaus, and that the father answered and not the son.

Luke 24:19

19 With perfect calmness Jesus persists in eliciting the statement he wants made. And he said to them, What things? And they said to him: Those about Jesus, the Nazarene, who was a prophet powerful in deed and word before God and all the people; also how our high priests and rulers delivered him up to a death judgment and crucified him. But we were hoping that he was the one about to ransom Israel. Yes, and along with all these things he is spending the third day since these things occurred. And another thing, some women from among us dumbfounded us, having gone early to the tomb and not finding his body, they came saying that they had seen also a vision of angels who declared him to be living. And some of those with us went away to the tomb and found it thus even as the women said; but him they did not see.

The word ποῖος is sometimes qualitative, sometimes it is not; it need not here be “what kind of things” but simply “what things,” being noncommittal. Between them or with one of them acting as the speaker they report the entire story of Jesus to Jesus himself simply, directly, and quite exactly but from the standpoint of the disciples who were simply at sea in regard to the final outcome that had been reported to them by the women that very morning. It was just what Jesus wanted, namely that these two should express themselves fully and thus enable Jesus to clear up the very things that were so dark and perplexing to them and to all the rest of the men. Jesus chose these two because they were two and could serve as two witnesses, not only to testify that they had seen him, but to testify to all that he was telling them about the Scripture prophecies regarding his death and his resurrection.

The theme is “the things concerning Jesus, the Nazarene,” which names him in the usual way as one would speak to a stranger who knew nothing about him. “Jesus” was a name that was found frequently among Jews, and “the Nazarene” thus distinguished him by naming the town from which he came. The relative clause begins the story under this theme and at once draws a brief but very adequate picture of this Jesus. We need not have ἐγένετο mean “who became” as though Jesus grew to be a prophet; it is the constative historical aorist which states summarily what Jesus “was.”

We have no idiom for ἀνὴρπροφήτης, so we say only “a prophet,” but the two nouns are intended to mean “a notable man who was a prophet.” But “prophet” is a broad word, which is quite properly applied to Jesus as the Messiah. It is not restrictive as making Jesus only another one of the great prophets whom the Jews knew, a sort of second to the Baptist; for Deut. 18:15–19 made “prophet” a title for the promised Messiah, and the Jews used this word with reference to him. The fact that the title is meant in this exalted sense is clear from the addition: “powerful in work and word in the presence of God and of all the people” (λαός, Israel). This phrase conveys the thought that God himself approved of this powerful prophet, likewise that the people as a whole did so.

Luke 24:20

20 The picture is grand and impressive: this powerful prophet moving before God and all the people with word and deed. With the close connective τε and with the conjunction that denotes manner the terrible end of his career are summarily but adequately added: “also how our high priests,” etc. “Delivered him up unto a death judgment” states the precise fact that the Sanhedrin itself handed Jesus over to Pilate to have a judgment pronounced on him that would remand him to death (the genitive is qualitative, and the two nouns form one concept: Todesurteil.) And thus the Sanhedrin “crucified him,” it was the real agent in this awful act. The two are correlative, “delivered him up” and “crucified him.” That is how he came to be crucified and was not stoned or killed in some other way.

Luke 24:21

21 Deep feeling runs through the entire recital but reaches its full intensity in the parenthetical statement (marked as such by δέ) about “we,” meaning all those who were most closely attached to Jesus: “we, however,” in contrast to our rulers, “we were hoping (the imperfect, hoping all along) that he (emphatic αὐτός) was the one about to be ransoming Israel.” The substance of this hoping is retained in the tense of the direct discourse in which it was originally expressed: “He is the one,” etc.; the English has to use “was.” The hope was national, the thinking of “Israel,” the sacred, honored name of the chosen people.

The verb λυτροῦσθαι calls for attention; we may translate “to redeem,” but when we do so we must hold fast the original meaning of redeem, namely “to ransom,” to set free by the payment of a λύτρον or ransom price. The treatment of the verb and of the corresponding nouns in the dictionaries is not satisfactory as Warfield, Christian Doctrine, has shown. The idea of a λύτρον never disappears; the verb never means merely “to save” or “to deliver,” for the saving act always costs something that corresponds to the saving that is effected. If it is deliverance from sin, the price is blood-sacrifice; if from danger or evils, the price is the strain, effort, etc. But the price always lies in the verb. The active voice means to receive the price and then to free; the middle, to pay the ransom or price and thus to free, and the passive, to have the price paid and thus to be set free. The infinitive is used here: “the one about to pay the ransom or price and thus deliver Israel.”

It is unfair to say that this meant political deliverance in the minds of the speakers. The statement appears after the one about the death and before the one that voices the complaint that Jesus has already spent three days in the tomb. This means that these disciples thought that Jesus would ransom Israel in spite of his death and perhaps through his death. The verb “to ransom” is perfectly in place. Just how the ransoming would be effected, and just what release it would buy for Israel were not clear to the two disciples, could not be. But they were correct in thinking that it would be a ransoming, but their hope was dying because Jesus lay dead and would remain dead.

The two ἀλλὰκαί are not adversative but affirmative. The first is climacteric with strong ascensive force which is increased by the addition of γέ, all of which we try to convey by translating: “yea, and,” etc. The subject of ἄγει is “he” (Jesus); the verb is not impersonal, could not be when an object follows. What perplexes and upsets these disciples and causes all their questioning is the fact that “along with these things” that brought on the death of Jesus he is now spending already the third day since these things occurred (meaning his trial and death), and not a thing has as yet happened.

Luke 24:22

22 The ἀλλὰκαί is here continuation: “and another thing.” See R. 1148 and 1185. This thing about the women is simply upsetting to these disciples, ἐξέστησαν, they dumbfounded us. The Greek uses the adjective in preference to the adverb: “having gone as early ones.”

Luke 24:23

23 Instead of finding the body as they had expected they brought back the incredible report that they had seen a vision of angels who declared Jesus to be living.

Luke 24:24

24 They add the detail about the two disciples who had run out to the tomb (v. 12: John 20:3) and found just what the women said—“but him they saw not.” This is the sad ending. The fact that the women had seen him (Matt. 28:9, 10), also Mary Magdalene (John 20:18), apparently failed to satisfy the men. The very excitement with which the women reported what they had seen made the men think that they were nervously upset, had imagined things, and ought not to be believed beyond the verifiable fact that the body was indeed gone.

Luke 24:25

25 The disciples had spoken, had put the whole story into words, and had thus stated their entire problem. That is what Jesus had asked them to do, and he now presents to them the full solution of their problem and of all its perplexities.

And he said to them: O dullards and slow of heart to believe on all the things which the prophets did utter! Was it not necessary that the Christ suffer, and that he enter into his glory? And having begun with Moses and with all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

The very tone with which Jesus begins, one of pained surprise and plain rebuke, shows that the same great person is speaking with authority and convincing power although he is unrecognized at the time. “O dullards” reproves their intellect and intelligence. Unbelief often lays claim to great intellectual powers and penetration; it is in reality the most pitiful and painful ignorance. These two Jews should have known their Scriptures better.

But we should not separate the terms; “slow of heart” (dative of relation after an adjective) is connected with “dullards” even as the infinitive modifies both: “dull and slow to believe on all the things which (the relative accusative drawn to the dative antecedent) the prophets did utter” (their spoken utterance being identical with their written records). They believe some of the things that had been written by the prophets, e. g., that the Messiah would come and establish his kingdom; but they did not believe all that had been written, they overlooked the very things that were so essential to this Messiah and his kingdom, the things which Jesus now expounds. That was their great inconsistency, their great lack of intelligence.

But the real trouble is in the heart, of which the intelligence is only one faculty. In the Scriptures καρδία is the seat of the personality, of the ἐγώ, and thus of the thinking, the feeling, and especially also the willing. The avenue into the heart is, indeed, through the intelligence, but the intelligence will see or not see what the inner personality desires. So both are here rebuked, but the full weight of the rebuke falls on these hearts that are so “slow to be believing,” etc., ἐπί with the dative stating “on” what the confidence of faith should rest. “Slow,” sluggish, means unresponsive to the prophetic words that ought to awaken faith. This is the resistance to the gracious power in the divine words. See how Jerusalem resisted to the last, and now hear the Savior’s complaint regarding even his disciples.

Luke 24:26

26 The interrogative word οὐχί, which implies a decided affirmative answer, at once illumines the intelligence and appeals to the heart and the will. Why, it could not have been otherwise than that, when the Christ should come, he had to suffer and to enter into his glory. Δεῖ expresses all kinds of necessity; here the imperfect ἔδει expresses the necessity that is involved in prophecy, a necessity that reaches back to the very first prophecy that was uttered about the Messiah and continues through the centuries until now, R. 887. No divine prophecy can possibly fail. Neither can all these prophets’ utterances about the suffering of the Messiah and about his then entering into his glory. To know those prophecies at all is to know that they must necessarily come to fulfillment. The question that Jesus thus puts is one that both of these disciples would answer with “yes.” As Jews they had always believed that about the divine prophecies. So Jesus opens the way for the rest of his task which is now once more with full vividness and clarity to unroll the ancient prophecies before the minds of these disciples and let the power of their truth fall on their hearts in order finally to produce faith.

In this instance the necessity goes back only to the prophets whose inspired words of revelation cannot possibly fail since they come from God. But back of this necessity there lies another, one that is found in God himself, the necessity of his love and his resolve to save the world. This is not an abstract necessity, nor can we speak of it in a philosophical sense as some do. It is not a metaphysical part of God’s being which he acts on because he cannot help but do so. This ultimate necessity rests on the free volition of God and on his unfathomable love to send his own Son for our redemption. This much is revealed, and no finite mind can penetrate farther back into the being of God.

The two acts of this necessity that are revealed through the prophets are: “to suffer and to enter into his glory.” They constitute a unit, and a misunderstanding results when a subordination is made: “to suffer in order to enter (or so as to enter) his glory.” To suffer means to expiate the world’s guilt by a bloody death; and with this there goes the other half, to enter his glory, to lay this sacrifice before God, which means that God is to accept it for the whole world’s guilt. As it was necessary that the price be paid, so it was necessary that God accept the payment, accept it by glorifying him who died for us and by seating him at his right hand. Both parts were revealed, and both were fulfilled, and our faith rests on both. On the part in glory read Ps. 110 and Luke 20:42–44. It is debated whether this second part about the glory was fulfilled in the resurrection or in the ascension. That is one of those useless questions which presents an alternative where none exists.

The two belong together even as they are often called the glorification. John 17:1, 5; 12:23, 28; 13:32; Phil. 2:9–11; Acts 3:21; 5:31. “His glory” is that which the Son had “before the world was” (John 17:5); and “to enter” that glory meant that the human nature of Jesus was to receive its full and eternal exercise.

Luke 24:27

27 All that remained to Jesus was to go through the prophets, state what they had uttered, and bring out just what that utterance had declared in advance. The wording has been called careless because of the use of the two prepositions: “having begun from Moses and from all the prophets,” etc. But whether we prefer the aorist “he did interpret” or the imperfect “he was interpreting” (but did not finish), the two prepositions are in place. Jesus made two beginnings, one with Moses and another with the rest of the prophets. The thought is that Moses stands alone, is higher than the prophets, that he is no less than the mediator of the old covenant even also as the Pentateuch stands out by itself. “All the prophets” are the rest of the Old Testament, the old name for which is “the Law and the Prophets,” the very distinction that Luke has in mind. We prefer the aorist, for we cannot think that Jesus failed to finish this task. He surely timed his walk in such a way as to complete this task.

Yes, Jesus finds himself in “all” the prophets. We should give much for even a record of the passages he used, give more for his exegesis of those passages; but we are left to search for ourselves. “Jesus found himself in the Old Testament, a thing that some modern scholars do not seem able to do,” R., W. P. “O dullards and slow in heart!” Some object to the reflexive “the things concerning himself” and think that the reading should be “concerning him.” Luke could have written either. Having told us that this was Jesus, “himself” is even better than the distant “him” would be.

Luke 24:28

28 And they drew near to the village where they were going, and he made the appearance of going farther. And they constrained him, saying, Abide together with us because it is toward evening, and the day has already declined. And he went in to abide with them.

The Greeks use “where” for “whither” much as we do. When προσποιέω is used in the middle voice it means Miene machen. It is to be understood in the good sense here: “he made as if,” and he would certainly have gone on if he had not been urged to stay. Jesus forces himself into no one’s home.

Luke 24:29

29 But these two disciples not only invite but also constrain him to remain with them. This reads so much as if the house to which they had come was their own home that we discard the idea of an inn or of some friend’s house. Their words are preserved. “Abide together with us,” in our company, etc. It is easy to see why. They voice exactly the feeling of all sincere disciples toward Jesus to this day. We also feel the need of Jesus, of his invisible yet no less real presence, especially when we think of the nearness of the night of death.

We need not allegorize the text but apply it to our own heart. The aorist “they constrained” implies success, but Luke adds the statement that he went in with them. It is grammatical stickling to say, “Only into the village because no house has been mentioned”; but Jesus reclines in the next verse, and that does not occur on the street.

Luke 24:30

30 And it came to pass on his having reclined together with them, having taken the bread, he blessed it and, having broken it, he was in the act of giving it over to them. And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he became hidden from them.

Ἐγένετο plus a finite verb is used as it was in 1:8, and ἐντῷ with an aorist infinitive as it was in 2:27; 3:21. The former marks the importance of what follows. The table was set for an evening meal, and Jesus had reclined for dining in the Jewish fashion. The two reclined with him. The strange fact is that Jesus did not act as a guest but as the host, for he took the bread in his hands and pronounced the blessing. This was the regular table prayer just as we still say grace before eating.

It was all perfectly natural, the result of the relation that had been established on the journey when Jesus acted as the teacher and the two disciples as his pupils. Neither of them thought it odd that Jesus should proceed as he did. After the blessing had been pronounced (aorist), Jesus broke the bread (aorist), the flat, unleavened cake that was always divided by breaking and never by cutting. But in the act of giving it over to them, as they were taking it from his hands (significant imperfect), their eyes were opened, etc. The description is exact and beautiful. Imagination has made this the Sacrament.

A strange sacrament, indeed—broken off in the very first act of it and never completed.

Luke 24:31

31 This is the reverse of v. 16, the one verse helps to interpret the other. The aorist suggests an instantaneous opening of the eyes. The disciples had looked upon Jesus, but they had not recognized him up to this moment. As if a veil had fallen from their eyes, they now saw that it was Jesus. In v. 25 they complained of a fatal lack in the evidence of the news that he was alive: “but him they did not see,” namely Peter and John, witnesses that were far more creditable than the women. They themselves had seen him all this time, had realized it at this wonderful moment, and had recognized him fully (ἐπί in the verb intensifies).

It was all so certain that not the shadow of a doubt was possible. But in that same instant, when their hands almost touched his as they took the bread, he became ἄφαντος, “nonappearing,” “hidden from them.” The place where he lay a moment ago was empty. This, too, was highly necessary for these disciples. They must realize that while Jesus was alive after his soul and his body had been reunited he was not to enter and to continue the old, earthly life in which they had known him so long. He had entered a new state in which he appeared and disappeared at will. As he had left the sealed tomb, so he now left the closed house.

The thought was overwhelming—incomprehensible, yet infinitely blessed.

Luke 24:32

32 And they said to each other, Was not our heart burning in us as he was talking to us on the way, as he was opening to us the Scriptures? And having arisen in that same hour, they returned to Jerusalem, and they found gathered together the Eleven and those with them, saying, Certainly the Lord did rise up and did appear to Simon! And they for their part began to rehearse the things on the way, and how he was made known to them in connection with the breaking of the bread.

From the immediate effect that was produced upon the two disciples Luke reports only the exclamatory question: “Was not our heart burning,” etc.? Why the word “burning” should have caused textual emendation is hard to see. It expressed the effect which the expositions of Jesus had produced on these two disciples, on both equally, that caused their heart to warm and to glow within them when they heard what the Scriptures said about the blessed suffering and the glorification of the Messiah. They saw that Jesus was this Messiah, and that what had been reported to them by the women must be true.

One should not, however, think that the two say this and mean that they should have known Jesus when he spoke to them since no one could speak like that but he. Any thought of that nature was a minor one. Their question intends to say that the way in which he spoke to them and that the effect of his words on their hearts are mighty corroborative evidence for what they realized just now, that they had indeed seen Jesus. It was now all as plain as day. The two clauses are parallel, the second being an apposition to the first: “how he was talking,” and: “how he was fully opening.” Not his λαλεῖν, mere utterance (the opposite of being silent), but this talking as opening up the Scriptures in such a wonderful way made their hearts glow and burn with new faith, assurance, and joy.

Luke 24:33

33 So they returned to Jerusalem at once. We now see why Luke reported the distance. It was not so far but what the two could easily retrace their steps. We take it that they got back to Jerusalem by about nine o’clock. Two facts are notable: they knew just where to go, and they found not only the apostles but also others together in one place. This is what the morning’s news of the resurrection had done in spite of the disbelief with which it was received.

When Mary Magdalene rushed back to the city early in the morning she found only Peter and John, these two friends were still together. The rest were scattered. But all are now together again. Since Jesus was dead, the bond was broken, nothing could hold even the Eleven together; but when the possibility that Jesus had risen from the dead became known, the old bond began to hold again. The perfect participle “having been gathered together” implies “and still gathered thus” when the two came. John 20:24 states that Thomas was absent, yet Luke writes that the two disciples from Emmaus found “the Eleven.” As they were formerly called “the Twelve,” so they are now called “the Eleven” whether the full number was actually present or not.

Note 1 Cor. 15:5 on “the Twelve.” Luke did not care to explain the absence of the one about whom he intends to say nothing in his record.

Luke 24:34

34 Jubilant shouts greet the two late arrivals: “The Lord truly arose!” ἠγέρθη is explained in v. 6, the aorist to designate the past fact. Κύριος (see 7:13) is surely the proper name, for it means “divine Lord” and was soon to be used in the full designation “our Lord Jesus Christ.” The decisive evidence on which this jubilant shout rests is added: “and did appear to Simon,” the aorist again expresses the past fact. This Simon is Peter, his old name was commonly used among his friends. Him the men believed. It is a bit inconsistent, for he was only one witness, the testimony of the women was set aside. But men are strange. Think of Thomas despite a dozen men who were witnesses.

When and where did Jesus appear to Peter, and what are the details? We know only the fact which Paul corroborates in 1 Cor. 15:5 and even regards the appearance to Simon (Cephas) as being one of the great evidences for the resurrection. And let us note that Paul, too, fails to mention the testimony of the women. Just why he did this is hard to say. Although Peter was the first man to see the risen Lord, this does not give him a papal distinction. All details are, it seems, purposely withheld, not because the church would have made much of them in elevating Peter above the other apostles, but for the opposite reason, because Peter had denied Jesus, and this appearance to him was in the nature of a private absolution. Hence a veil is in place.

Luke 24:35

35 The αὐτοί has emphasis, for it places the two over against all the others whom they found. They told their wonderful story, which certainly surpassed that of Peter. The phrase ἐντῇκλάσει is often translated and also interpreted as though it indicated the means by which Jesus was made known. This puts into the phrase what is not in it, for the making known occurred as v. 30 describes it: “in connection with the breaking of the bread,” right after the breaking, when the bread was being handed over to them. The supposition that they had often seen Jesus do this act and that, when they now see it once more, this revealed his person to them is untenable.

Luke 24:36

36 Now, while they were telling these things, he himself stood in their midst and says to them, Peace to you!

When we reconstruct this scene we add from John the detail that the doors were locked for fear of the Jews, so that no one could enter the room without first knocking and being admitted. From Mark we learn that the disciples were reclining on their couches at supper, and that the meal was apparently about ended. All those who are in the room are engaged in animated conversation about “these things” that had been reported by Simon and by the two disciples from Eramaus. Then all in an instant Jesus himself (emphatic αὐτός) “stood in their midst,” ἔστη, the aorist to indicate the fact. John writes “came and stood,” which marks the arrival as well as the standing.

Among the ridiculous ideas that are connected with this statement are these: Jesus climbed up a ladder and through a window; he descended on a stairway from the roof; he entered into the house before the doors were locked; he slipped in when the two disciples from Emmaus were admitted; he was allowed to come in through connivance on the part of the doorkeeper. They all agree in denying the miracle. Others have the doors open of themselves to let Jesus walk in; or they leave them locked while Jesus walks through them as if they were not there; or they have him walk right through the walls of the house and of the room. This latter is a miracle, indeed, but it is crudely conceived. Acts 12:10 is useless in this connection, for the body of Peter was not in the same state as that of the risen Lord.

Since he is in his risen and glorified state, time, space, the rock of the tomb, the walls and the doors of buildings no longer hamper the body of Jesus. He appears where he desires to appear, and his visible presence disappears when he desires to have it so. This is wholly supernatural, wholly incomprehensible to our minds. Nor may we ask or seek to comprehend where Jesus stayed during the intervals between his appearances during the forty days. When our bodies shall eventually enter the heavenly mode of existence, we may know something of these supreme mysteries, but we doubt that we shall even then really comprehend the profundities of the divine omnipresence of which the human nature of Jesus partakes, and which he exercised since his vivification in the tomb as he did in these wondrous appearances.

Jesus did not walk through anything. The disciples did not see him take so many steps from the doors or the wall to their midst. He was there, and that was all. Luther is right over against the Zwinglians: “By this coming through locked doors is shown that since his resurrection in his kingdom on earth he is no longer bound to bodily, visible, tangible, mundane substance, time, place, space, and the like, but wants to be known and believed as ruling by his power everywhere present, having the will to be with us and help us in all places and at all times, when and where we need it, unfettered and unhindered by the world and all its might.”

Jesus says at once: “Peace to you!” But this common Oriental form of greeting, which implies only a kindly human wish when it is spoken by ordinary lips, means infinitely more when it is spoken by him who died and rose for us. As is the person, so is the word. When Jesus says “peace” he actually gives what the word says. It is not a lovely-looking package that is empty inside but one that is filled with heavenly reality that is far more beautiful than the covering in which it is wrapped. The concept εἰρήνη, the condition of peace and the feeling that results from the condition, are treated in 7:50. We must add here the seals of this divine peace, the death and the resurrection.

A peace that is so sealed he conveys to the disciples. We do not know that anyone present, even Peter who had already seen the risen Lord (v. 34), made any response to the greeting; responses were always made. We see why none was made in this instance.

Luke 24:37

37 But terrified and become afraid, they were thinking they were beholding a spirit.

The disciples believed that Jesus had risen from the dead (v. 34, 35). But when the living Lord suddenly stood in the room before their very eyes, the effect of this appearance terrified them. Luke uses two words to describe this reaction in order to show how completely they were struck with fear. The disciples recognized the powers of the resurrection of Jesus only gradually. Terror arouses all the superstition that is latent in men’s minds. We see it when the Twelve were out on the sea in the raging storm; were physically exhausted and cried that they saw a phantom (Matt. 14:26).

The same thing occurs here, save that no one cried out, but they were thinking that they were beholding a πνεῦμα, “a spirit,” i. e., seeing a ghost. No one had ever seen one, nor had they; it was what they thought a spirit, an unsubstantial appearance without a solid material body of actual flesh, must be like.

One thing may be noted here: we do not know by how much the glorified form of Jesus differed from his appearance in his earthly life, and not even whether he always appeared in the same form during the forty days. May we say that a majesty and an exaltation were now evident in the old familiar form and face, such as the disciples had not seen before? Simon and the two Emmaus disciples had seen him, but we have no details about the former case and know that in the other Jesus became invisible just as he was recognized. When fear set in in a company like the present one, its contagion was hard to resist. Men are strange, indeed—so joyful a moment ago because Jesus had arisen, so frightened now on beholding him in his risen form.

Luke 24:38

38 And he said to them: Why are you agitated, and because of what are thoughts going up in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself! Handle me and see! For a spirit does not have flesh and bones even as you behold me having. And on saying this he showed to them the feet and the hands.

John says that he showed them also his side, namely the wound that had been left by the gash of the spear. The perfect participle is used as an adjective in the predicate after the copula, and the perfect tense of the participle has its usual strong present connotation. The disciples “are” in a shaken condition. The effect of this is that all kinds of foolish thoughts are coming up in their hearts. “Why” does not specify, but “because of what” asks for a reason. No rational reason can be assigned for their agitation or for the wild ideas that were shooting up in their minds. Jesus knows what they are thinking, and his double question aims to dispel those frantic thoughts and to put something sensible in their place.

They thought of “a spirit.” Did they mean an evil spirit that was impersonating Jesus and trying to terrify them? If so, the questions dispelled that notion. Or did they think that only the spirit of Jesus had returned to them from the other world? That notion, too, Jesus dispels at once. Luther takes occasion in this connection to explode the spiritistic superstitions as though the spirits of the dead are able to return from the other world and are able to communicate with us in some way. The Bible denies this throughout. God refuses to send one from the dead to warn us or to preach to us, 16:31, and has forbidden us to try to talk with the dead, Deut. 18:11; Isa. 8:19. Jesus calls the disciples to calm, sensible consideration.

Luke 24:39

39 He holds out his hands and his feet, John adds his side. Two purposes are thus met. These bodily members are solid flesh and bone. Jesus demands that they be handled, and the aorist implies that his command was obeyed. Jesus adds what they themselves know, that a spirit has no flesh and bones “even as you behold me having.” Let no one say that awe restrained the disciples from touching the glorified body. Do you suppose that Jesus would take the risk that the old doubts should again appear afterward? He was here to convince every one of these men of the reality of his human body, “flesh and bones,” and he convinced them by their actually handling him.

The first ὅτι = that, the clause is an object after ἴδετε; the second ὅτι is just as plainly “because,” it states an acknowledged reason. But a good purpose accompanies the first clause, “that it is I myself,” the Jesus you have known so long. He establishes his personal identity by means of his body. Hands, feet, side—these bear the five holy wounds of his crucifixion. By them they know him to the exclusion of the least doubt. Jesus makes the disciples learn what a resurrection body is like: it is the body of the same person, the same body of that person, and yet both the person and the body are in a new and wonderful state.

Many seem to be afraid that we may think that the body of Jesus retained permanently the gaping wounds that had been made at the crucifixion, and so they assure us that these wounds were not permanent, and others turn them into stigmata, marks that indicate where the wounds had been. It is best never to pronounce on matters that are quite unknown to us. If Jesus wished to retain his wounds he could certainly do so, and they would certainly always appear as the evidence in his very body and of his glorious work of redemption. But the view is untenable that Jesus speaks of his flesh and bones, not of his blood, because the circulation of the blood could be felt less easily, and because what was in his veins might be something else than blood.

Modernists grant the death of Jesus but certainly not his bodily resurrection, the latter is a priori impossible. But how account for the empty tomb? What became of the dead body that had been placed under guard by a detachment of Roman soldiers? No denier of the resurrection is able to give even a plausible answer. Here we have the answer of Jesus as to what became of his body. That body arose—and there is no resurrection except that of the dead body.

Luke 24:40

40 Jesus showed the disciples his bodily members, not merely to see them but to handle them. The texts that shorten v. 3, 6, 9 and omit v. 12 and also from καί in v. 36, omit also v. 40; but they are too few to warrant even the marginal notes that are added in the R. V.

Luke 24:41

41 But they still disbelieving from joy and wondering, he said to them, Have you something eatable here? And they gave over to him a piece of broiled fish. And having taken it, he ate it before them.

It is one thing to disbelieve, it is quite another to disbelieve because of joy. The heart is too small to take in the great joy all at once. There is a flutter as if the reality might after all not be real. Luther calls this a curious statement—fear and fright at first hold up faith, it is then held up by the very opposite, joy. He calls it one of the Christian’s afflictions that grace is altogether too great and glorious for us promptly to take it all in. While the joy and the wonder were at their height, Jesus asked for τιβρώσιμον, “something eatable.” This was done because the disciples had been dining. The food must have been eaten, the tables, too, had perhaps already been cleared.

Luke 24:42

42 They promptly hand Jesus a piece of broiled fish (ὀπτός is the verbal from ἀπτάω, to cook, roast, or broil, and is used as an adjective). Note that ἐπέδωκαν is the same verb that was used in v. 30, where Jesus hands out the bread in Emmaus. The addition “and of an honeycomb,” literally, “of honeycomb from bees” (μελισσίου), like the addition “bread,” and like other expansions of the text, lack authority to such an extent as to be hardly worthy of attention save by text critics.

Luke 24:43

43 Jesus took this fish and ate it before them, i. e., for them to see. He ate, not for his own sake, but to add this new proof that it was, indeed, his own physical body that stood before them. This eating is cumulative proof which is strong in itself but stronger because of what precedes and makes that, too, stronger. Compare Gen. 18:6–8; 19:3 on the eating of God and of angels. To call it impossible is to pretend to have knowledge that no man possesses; and to go beyond the fact of eating is to do the same unwarranted thing. Why discourse about glorified bodies, their capabilities and incapabilities, when we know nothing on the subject?

Jesus was wise. The great joy (John 20:20) of the disciples was not an entirely safe symptom, nor was the wondering that was connected with it; presently, after Jesus would be gone, and sober thought would once more come back, the old doubts and new ones might return. So Jesus does this physical eating and brings back the question of his actual and bodily resurrection and furnishes another decisive proof for all sober minds.

Luke 24:44

44 After these incontrovertible proofs are in their possession, Jesus repeats what he had done for the two Emmaus disciples (v. 25–27): he takes all these disciples into the Scriptures. Note the connecting thought that runs through this chapter and that most likely influenced Luke in choosing his material: the angels quote the prophecy of Jesus which itself rested on the Old Testament; the Emmaus disciples hear the Scriptures expounded at length, so Jesus now explains them to the disciples here in the city.

Moreover, he said to them, These are my words which I did utter to you, yet being with you, that it is necessary that there be fulfilled all the things that have been written in the law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning me. Then he opened their mind to understand the Scriptures.

We acknowledge that “moreover he said to them” neither affirms nor denies the immediate connection with the preceding. We admit more, that especially in Luke an interval might be supposed, that v. 44 might place us elsewhere at a later time. So we meet the opinion that in v. 44–49 Luke intends to offer a summary of what Jesus said to his disciples during the forty days—but nobody who is just reading these verses would see a summary in them.

There is another opinion which thinks that these verses were spoken on the day of Christ’s ascension, an idea, however, that is without supporting evidence. Our conviction that v. 44–49 belong to the appearance on Easter evening and continue the narrative from v. 43 rests, not on the opening words “he said to them,” but on the correspondence of John 20:21–23 with this passage in Luke. Both deal with the commission of the apostles, both with the forgiveness of sin. John 20:19–23 records the appearance on Easter evening and intends to supplement what Luke wrote in 24:44–49. John shows that on that evening Jesus said far more than is found in Luke 24:36–43; we must include what he said in 44–49. The reason these verses should be dated later has yet to be shown.

“These the words” refers back (not forward as has been supposed), but hardly to a previous discourse, the closing sentence of which Luke now records. The λόγοι are statements, certain facts that were uttered in words, the substance that was spoken. They are dated: Jesus uttered them while he was yet with his disciples, namely before his death, Οὗτοι is masculine only because of the predicate οἱλόγοι; it stands for ταῦτα, “these things,” the ones that involved and are evident in what v. 36–43 record. Jesus stated these things to his disciples during past days in logoi. Luke has told us that they failed completely to understand them at the time (9:44). But those words were not spoken in vain by any means.

The disciples remembered them and now see them fulfilled and are at last able to understand them. They now stand out for the disciples as being the mighty prophecies of Jesus.

He summarizes those logoi: “that it is necessary,” etc. Compare v. 26 on the necessity. The perfect “the things that have been written” is the Greek way of saying that those written records still stand. Jesus again asserts that the whole Old Testament wrote concerning him. He even names the three parts of the Old Testament, and does that under one article: “the Law of Moses (Pentateuch) and Prophets and Psalms”; in v. 27 the briefer designation is used which includes all except the Law under the term “the Prophets.” In this Jewish division Prophets includes Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and all the actual prophets save Daniel. The common term for the rest of the books was the Hagiographa, which included Daniel.

Jesus calls this part of the Old Testament “Psalms,” which is out of the ordinary yet does not intend to stress the Psalms in a special way or to leave out Daniel, for instance. Jesus views the Old Testament as a unit, and its prophecy concerning him is not confined to a few incidental passages. These only stand out like Isa. 53 and Ps. 22. The entire Old Testament economy centers in Christ; none of it would have existed without him or can now be properly understood without him. This was all so clear to the mind of Jesus that he could dip into these writings at a thousand points and show how they Spoke περὶἐμοῦ.

Luke 24:45

45 Jesus then went into the Scriptures at length, much as he did in v. 27, and opened the mind of the disciples to a real understanding of them. The present infinitive points to a continuous and thus lasting understanding. This means that the disciples now saw that the Old Testament stated prophetically the very things they had witnessed and were now witnessing. Prophecy becomes wonderfully clear when we can place the fulfillment beside it, especially when we can do it in the way in which Jesus did.

Luke 24:46

46 “And he said to them” by no means indicates that what is now quoted was spoken at a later time. The connection with what is spoken is too close. We have the precedent for this connection in v. 25, 26, plus the parallel passage John 20:21–23 for a part of what Luke now quotes. It took some time to open the minds of the disciples, and so Luke now states that Jesus spoke the following.

And he said to them: Thus it has been written, that the Christ suffer and arise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance be proclaimed on the basis of his name and remission of sins unto all the nations beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And lo, I myself am sending forth the promise of my Father upon you. But you, you sit in the city until you become clothed from on high with power.

We cancel “and thus it behooved” after “thus it has been written” as lacking textual authority. When he comes to the conclusion of the opening of the mind of the disciples to the Scriptures Jesus emphasizes once more that it stands written thus in a permanent divine record. The three infinitives state the substance of what has been written: suffer—arise—be proclaimed. R. 858 calls these aorists timeless, we regard them as being constative. This is especially true of a proclaiming which runs through the ages but is here summed up in one aoristic point. The suffering and the rising had been accomplished, the proclaiming was yet to begin; but as they were recorded in the Old Testament—and of that Jesus speaks here—all three acts were future, each was viewed in a punctiliar way.

The verb is active here: that the Christ “arise.” The Scriptures say both, that he himself arose, and that he was raised by the Father; see v. 6. The phrase ἐκνεκρῶν is treated in 9:7.

Luke 24:47

47 “To enter into his glory” is comprehensive in v. 26; the disciples now hear what this involves, namely their preaching and their being clothed with power. This, too, “has been written.” The verb κηρύσσειν, to act as a κῆρυξ, to proclaim in public as a herald, is the standard verb for preaching. The herald gets his message from the man who sends him, and all he does is to announce that message. He dare not change it in any way. Men may say and think of it what they please, his business is only the loud, public heralding. The passive hides the agents, the heralds, for the moment but Jesus at once names them.

This heralding is to be done “on the basis of his (the Christ’s) name”; it is to rest on the revelation that he has made of himself. See 9:48 on this important phrase. Μετάνοια, “repentance,” is treated in 3:3; and ἄφεσις, “remission of sins,” in 1:77. They are to be understood in the same sense here and throughout the Scriptures. The reading is: “repentance and (not: for) remission.” The great news is to be proclaimed that on the name of the Christ, on the basis of his revelation, a complete change of heart and riddance from all sins are to be obtained.

The proclamation is to be made “unto all the nations,” πάντατὰἔθνη (the same term that is used in Matt. 28:19 and is expanded fully in Acts 1:8). Let no one say that Jesus did not say this about all nations so often during these forty days. He had to say it often in order to impress it upon the disciples who clung so tenaciously to their narrow Judaism (Acts 1:6). Judaism is included in “all nations” as being one nation, but only as being one among many. The reading ἀρξάμενοι, a nominative plural participle after a passive aorist infinitive, has caused textual changes, grammatical perplexity, and resort to a punctuation which makes the participle a part of the following sentence. R. 1203 speaks about an anacoluthon or a use of the participle as a principal verb and in 946 is willing to change the punctuation and to give this form an imperative sense.

But there is a simpler solution. The Greek freely adds either an apposition or a participle in the nominative case, where a pedant would insist on an oblique case (here the accusative). When it is doing this the Greek is conscious of no grammatical irregularity whatever. B.-D. 137, 3. This pertains especially to the participle we have here with its idea of von—an, an-fangend von, B.-D. 419, 3. These Galileans are not to start their world-wide preaching from Galilee even though Jesus did a good deal of work there, and even though the Sanhedrin would offer the strongest opposition. “Starting from Jerusalem” is the Lord’s order.

Not because salvation is of the Jews; it could be of the Jews even if the disciples started in Galilee. Jerusalem is the heart of the Jewish nation; Jesus will win his first victories there.

Luke 24:48

48 Jesus does not need to say outright that these disciples to whom he is speaking are to be the preachers that were foretold in the Scriptures as going out to all nations. All he says is: “You are witnesses of these things.” They saw the fulfillment of the Scripture prophecies concerning the Christ in Jesus, are seeing it at the moment of Jesus’ speaking. They are to be the witness-heralds. Their proclamation is to be testimony. They therefore lead all other heralds, who, because they are not themselves witnesses, can only take up the testimony of these witnesses and keep on heralding it. Acts 1:8; 2:32; 3:15, “witnesses.”

Luke 24:49

49 The disciples need have no fears regarding this coming task. The great thing that Jesus will do for them, which is ushered in with the exclamation “lo,” is that he himself (ἐγώ, emphatic) will send forth (so soon that he uses the present tense) the promise of his Father upon them, the Holy Spirit, the other Paraclete, who had been promised by the Father and is therefore called “the Father’s promise”—see Peter’s sermon which expounds this promise on the basis of Joel, Acts 2:16, etc. In view of the fulfillment of this promise by the risen Jesus he already now orders them to sit, i. e., stay, in the city until that day should come, which would not be long as he told them in Acts 1:5. It is pedantic to say that the disciples were not to step out of the city until Pentecost, and that this is in contradiction to Matt. 28:7, 16, etc.; Mark 16:7; John 21:1. Complying with further orders of Jesus that were given already before his death (Matt. 26:32), the whole host of his disciples, about 500, met for a specific purpose and at a designated place in Galilee (1 Cor. 15:5; Matt. 28:16); but on Pentecost these witnesses were found waiting in Jerusalem.

What they were to wait for Jesus explains further: “until you become clothed from on high with power.” The verb is the middle voice, “become clothed with,” but not, “put on yourselves” as R., W. P. thinks. The figure of being clothed with authority or with power in the sense of receiving it in order to exercise it is common. It denotes that the power is a gift, and its source is “from on high,” from the Father and from Jesus who will presently ascend on high. The gift of the Spirit will fill the disciples with power that is fully and completely adequate to perform their task in Jerusalem and among the nations.

Luke 24:50

50 Now he led them out till over against Bethany. And having lifted up his hands, he blessed them. And it came to pass while he was blessing them he separated from them and was being borne into the heaven. And they, having bowed in worship to him, returned to Jerusalem with great joy. And they were continually in the Temple praising God.

In this section, too, we find omissions as these are noted in the R. V. margin, but they have very minor textual evidence so that we need say no more. The claim is unwarranted that Luke tells us in his Gospel that Jesus ascended to heaven on the very day of his resurrection whereas the same Luke tells us in the Acts that Jesus ascended forty days later. This claim says that “he led them out” means that very Easter night. So the ascension took place at night, in the moonlight. Luke first got hold of one tradition and followed it, he then discovered another and again followed it without a word of explanation—and he sent both documents to the same man, Theophilus!

In his Gospel, let us understand it well, Luke offers no date for the ascension. He furnishes only a brief account because he intends to open the Acts with a full account of this act and there furnishes us the exact date. This proceeding on the part of Luke explains fully why the other Gospels stop with the resurrection. The resurrection constitutes the climax throughout apostolic preaching. That was the apostolic view. It is also Luke’s view. What he adds about the ascension in his Gospel is given only for good measure. He has Pentecost in mind in v. 49 and so writes a few sentences about the ascension. But both the ascension and Pentecost really belong in Acts.

The place from which Jesus led his disciples out is not mentioned, but the context points to Jerusalem. “He led them out” reminds us of his walk with the two Emmaus disciples. He was in his glorified body, and we assume that he was seen only by the disciples as being those by whom alone he wished to be seen. Ἕωςπρός = “till over against,” or “till toward,” and does not, of course, mean that Jesus went to Bethany but only to that point on the Mount of Olives where the road forks, one branch going on to Jericho, the other to Bethany. It is noteworthy that both the agony and the ascension took place on the Mount of Olives; the places are located some distance apart but are still on the same ridge. Our humiliations and our exaltations often lie close together. Jesus and the disciples had often walked over this piece of road during these past days—think how they were walking it now!

When Jesus had reached the spot he had chosen, as the Acts show, he and the disciples spoke once more. Then a hush fell, he raised up his hands and blessed them, spoke a word of divine benediction over them. Luke states only the fact. The great moment had come, and it was sanctified by this blessing.

Luke 24:51

51 Luke again uses his two favorite idioms: “it came to pass” followed by a finite verb and ἐντῷ with an infinitive. The former marks the importance of the event. As the words of blessing were being spoken, he separated from them, slowly, visibly, and their eyes followed him (Acts 1:10). Luke adds a descriptive imperfect: “and was being borne into heaven,” which shows how his visible body rose higher and higher in a wondrous manner. The ascension pertains only to the body and human nature of Jesus.

What a majestic act! How perfectly it completed and rounded out the earthly career of Jesus! No other mode of departure would have left the impression that this one left. During the forty days he had merely vanished whenever he left the disciples; but he now ascends visibly, and the disciples understand that no further appearances are to follow. They are granted the privilege of seeing his final going to the Father, and they know that the Comforter will soon come down upon them, and that their great work will then begin. The Acts relate that a cloud enveloped him, and so they saw him no more. No; he did not continue rising physically into upper space, hidden by the cloud. Timelessly his glorified body was in heaven, in the glorious abode of God, the angels, and the spirits of the blessed.

Read Acts 1:9; John 6:62; Heb. 4:14; 9:24; John 14:1–6. These speak of the place. The ascension was also the exaltation, Dan. 7:14; Ps. 110:1; Matt. 22:44; Acts 2:34; Heb. 1:13. Both the ascension and the exaltation are full of saving power. Acts 2:33; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 2:6; Heb. 6:19, 20; 9:24. Jesus now entered upon his kingly work.

His prophetic and his high priestly work he completed on earth and only continues in heaven; but his kingly work he only began on earth and really entered upon in heaven. Read Ps. 47:5–9; 68:18. Not merely as a saint did Jesus ascend to heaven, “above all heavens” as the apostle says; not merely to be in heaven as Elijah is in heaven; but in his human nature to be exalted in the glory of the divine majesty forever. Yes, in heaven the saints see the man Jesus, but those who think that he is confined in heaven so that in his human nature he is there only and cannot at the same time be where he promised to be here on earth, have to learn what his ascension and his glorification really mean. The disciples witnessed the end of the resurrection, not its beginning in the secret tomb; they witnessed the beginning of the ascension, not its end when Jesus was enthroned. Luke lets the imperfect ἀνεφέρετο stand without bringing its motion to rest in an aorist, which is highly expressive of the actual act as the disciples saw it, their eyes noted no rest.

Luke 24:52

52 The disciples were overcome by the glorious act which they witnessed and bowed to the earth in worship. Christies est Deus is Bengel’s brief comment. Matt. 28:9. This worship of Jesus, in whom we see the deity, and who is deity in his person, will continue to all eternity. The visible presence of Jesus was gone, not to appear again as before, but when the disciples returned to Jerusalem, their hearts sang “with great joy.” They were not bereaved but enriched. Their fear was gone; they no longer hid behind locked doors. They had a Lord and Savior in heaven, who ruled all things with his omnipotent and omnipresent power and would make good all his promises.

Luke 24:53

53 That is why Luke adds the statement that these disciples were continually in the Temple, blessing God. Their hearts were so full of gratitude that they naturally sought this outlet in their great place of worship, the Temple. Prudence would have hurried them off to their homes in Galilee. But Another directed them to stay right here in Jerusalem. No Sanhedrin frightened them; they went regularly and in public to the Temple—all men could see them. But they only worshipped, they did not preach—they waited. “Praising God” is Luke’s last word. It is fitting, indeed, as the final note. Close the book and also praise God!

Soli Deo Gloria

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschem Handwoerterbuch, etc.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.