On account of a supernatural confluence of natural events that resulted in three consecutive sabbaths on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday for Jesus’ followers, all they could do on the day He was crucified and the days following while He lay in the grave was to rest and wait to see the great salvation God was about to reveal through His resurrection Sunday morning. Because He was accomplishing something entirely new of which they could not conceive in raising Him from the dead—not to the natural life with which they were familiar, but to eternal spiritual life that would never again be subject to death (Luk 20:36, Rom 6:9)—convincing His followers of His resurrection to that new state of being with which they were not familiar was not as simple as we might suppose. For from the testimony of Scripture, the very nature of the spiritual body to which He was raised might have an entirely different appearance from the seed of the natural body from which it was sown (1Co 15:37), and might be perceived differently, or not at all, depending upon one’s spiritual perception, so that those witnessing the events surrounding the resurrection might easily and naturally wonder if what they were experiencing was even real; cf. Act 12:7-11.
Who does Matthew say came to the tomb Sunday morning to discover that it was empty? See Mat 28:1. Who else does Mark mention? See Mar 16:1-2. Should we necessarily assume that it was Sunday morning when the three women Mark mentions bought the spices to anoint Him, or might it have been Saturday night since the Sabbath concluded at sunset, or perhaps even on Friday, which was after the sabbath they would have kept on Thursday for the first day of Unleavened Bread according to their reckoning of the Passover a day earlier than that of the religious leaders in Jerusalem? Cf. Luk 23:56. Is it possible that Salome was not actually in the immediate company of the two Marys as they went to the tomb, perhaps coming from a different location, and / or perhaps purchasing that morning whatever spices they might be lacking so as to arrive later (and thus explaining why Matthew didn’t mention her in his account)? Is it possible that there were yet others who were also joining them in the anointing of Jesus’ dead body, but who also arrived somewhat later, coming from different locations? See Luk 23:55-56, 24:1,10. Is it in fact reasonable to assume that the women from Galilee who had followed Jesus were all staying in the same location so as to all travel together to the tomb together at daybreak and arrive at exactly the same time? Or is it more reasonable to assume that because of the Passover when Jerusalem was overflowing with pilgrims so that Jesus and His disciples retired to the Mount of Olives to spend the night, they too would have been staying wherever they could, but not necessarily together? What does this remind us about the nature of written language that although true and even precise when rightly understood, may yet be easily misunderstood because the assumptions made by readers (especially readers separated by time and culture) may not be correct? What does this then teach us about the importance of using proper hermeneutical principles to understand Scripture, and being careful to simply accept the text for what it says and not read into it more than it says?
What does Matthew say was the purpose for which the two Marys came to the grave, compared to what Mark says was the purpose? See Mat 28:1, Mar 16:1. Considering that Salome was likely the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary and thus more responsible for the care of the dead body than these other two, and that she perhaps arrived after the other two with additional spices she had purchased to anoint Him, why do Matthew’s words make perfect sense having chosen not to mention the spices and Salome’s role since that was a moot point after His resurrection, especially years later when he wrote? Why does Luke’s account also make perfect sense in summarizing the collective effort that the women who had come with Jesus out of Galilee made to meet together early Sunday morning to anoint His body and discovered that the tomb was empty, choosing to focus only on those aspects that he could personally verify? Cf. Luk 1:3-4 and see again Luk 23:55-56, 24:1,10. Who might we suppose to be one of Luke’s witnesses who perhaps arrived later than the two Marys? See Luk 24:10; cf. Luk 8:2-3. Is it also possible that Luke’s description of the two men in dazzling apparel who appeared at the tomb to the women (who are not specifically named, see Luk 24:4-10), was not necessarily the same vision of angels Matthew and Mark describe that was clearly to the two Marys? Might it have been to Joanna and perhaps Susanna (Luk 8:3) and / or one of the many other women who had followed Jesus out of Galilee, who arrived shortly after the two Marys had experienced their vision, and perhaps even as those two were on their way to report what they had seen? Recall that Luke wrote after Matthew and Mark’s gospels were already in circulation and known to him so that he was not writing to contradict but to clarify and expand upon their accounts; Luk 1:1-4. Is it also possible that the two Marys didn’t necessarily go together to the same location after leaving the tomb but went to disciples in different locations to share what they had seen, so that John’s description (who wrote last of all) of Mary Magdalene running to inform Peter and John also makes good sense (Joh 20:1-2)?