On Sunday morning, Jesus’ resurrection from the dead was announced first by an angel to Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and then by two angels to another group of women who arrived shortly later. But because His body was missing, and the reality of the angelic visions faded like a dream as the angels themselves disappeared, they were left to wonder what had actually happened. So it wasn’t until later that morning when the resurrected Jesus Himself appeared first to the two Marys that the impenetrable darkness of death through which fallen man could not see began to break. So great was that darkness that in spite of Jesus’ words that He would rise again, and the angelic proclamations, and the testimony of Mary, still Jesus’ own apostles would not believe. But, like the faintest light of dawn that brightens further with the breaking of the day, Jesus’ resurrection and the hope of life after death—and deliverance from the fear of death that the devil had used to enslave the world—continued to brighten as Jesus appeared to others.
Although Scripture barely mentions it, Jesus also appeared to Peter, which likely happened later that morning or early that afternoon after He had appeared to the two Marys, but before He appeared to the two men on the road to Emmaus. Peter had suffered greatly since Jesus’ death for his failure in the garden to keep watch and then later in denying Him, perhaps tempted even as Judas was to end his life; cf. Luk 22:31-32. It is significant then that Jesus did not delay to appear to him. Knowing what we do about Jesus’ appearances to the two Marys and the two disciples on the road to Emmaus in which they at first didn’t recognize Him, as well as His appearance at the Sea of Galilee (Joh 21:1-14), it is probable that Peter likewise didn’t recognize Him at first, and that it was only by faith that he realized it was Him. Thus, he too would have had a hard time convincing others, perhaps even himself at first, that Jesus had appeared to him. But the weight of his testimony would certainly have been like the growing gleams of dawn breaking over the horizon on that day when the glory of the Lord rose upon His people, Isa 60:1-5 (cf. Isa 59:1-2,15-17, 20-21, 61:1).
What things were the two on the road to Emmaus aware of in regard to the empty tomb of Jesus that morning as they were conversing about them along the way (Luk 24:14)? See Luk 24:1-12,19-24. What information is communicated about the nature of their conversation from the word in Luk 24:15 translated by the NAS as discussing that actually has the connotation of disputing or arguing as it is translated in Mar 8:11, 9:14, Act 6:9, 9:29? See also the NET which translates the word here as debating, as well as Jesus’ question to them in Luk 24:17 asking about the words they were exchanging (Greek ἀντιβάλλω), which literally means throwing against each other, or tossing back and forth. What does Luk 24:21 indicate about their clear understanding of Jesus’ teaching prior to His crucifixion that He would rise again on the third day? In spite of their faith in Jesus and what He had foretold would happen, as well as the women’s testimony of the angel’s proclamation that Jesus had risen, and John’s testimony that he believed though he couldn’t explain what had happened (Joh 20:8), what was the key point of debate that was hindering them from fully believing that Jesus had risen from the dead and was alive? See Luk 24:23-24, Joh 20:9. How is the empty tomb and the missing corpse of Jesus still the crux upon which belief in Jesus’ resurrection rests, which, although there is excellent evidence to support it, must still be accepted by faith? Note also that at that time, the disciples had no understanding of the glorified, resurrected body to which Jesus was in fact raised, He being the first-fruits of the resurrection. Neither could they imagine how mortal life could be restored, as it had to Lazurus, to His battered body that had been drained of its life fluids—about which they were likely correct. (Think: could mortal life be restored to a body blown to pieces by a bomb?) Also observe that the NAS rise again in Joh 20:9 translates a different Greek term (ἀνίστημι), from which the word for resurrection (ἀνάστασις) is derived, than that used more generically to raise from the dead (ἐγείρω), which was used of the widow of Nain’s son (Luk 7:14,22), Jairus’ daughter (Luk 8:54), and Lazarus (Joh 12:1,9,17), all of whom we now understand more correctly, in light of Jesus’ resurrection, were resuscitated from the dead to mortal life, not resurrected to immortal life never to die again. See also Mar 9:9-10 where the same word (ἀνίστημι) is used with the same perplexity, since the disciples simply couldn’t at that time conceive of what a resurrected body might be like since it was completely outside of anything the world had ever experienced.
What does the nature of this conversation between two of Jesus’ close disciples indicate about His resurrection definitely not being a settled issue at that time, but rather a matter of debate? Although the sun was rising and the light was growing brighter and brighter at that very time in regard to the resurrection and all the hope it would inspire, so that it would become a settled question for them before the day was over, how was such a debate like others Christians have since had on various matters that took much longer to settle (such as the nature of Christ and the Trinity), or that are still unsettled (such as the correct understanding of the end times and Christ’s return)? From their example, is discussing or even debating such matters necessarily wrong? Before the sun has risen fully so that all in that light can clearly come to a correct understanding of such matters, should we be divisive over them and consider others who don’t see things from our perspective as less than ourselves? Is it possible, that as with Jesus’ resurrection, there are things that we simply cannot yet understand until God chooses to reveal them to us? Cf. Deut 29:29. What should this teach us about the importance of humility in our doctrinal understanding of our Christian faith, and not being too dogmatic?