Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 16:12
After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
12, 13. The Appearance to Two of them
12. After that ] On the world’s first Easter-Day the risen Saviour manifested Himself first to Mary Magdalene, then to the other ministering women. The Evangelist now proceeds to relate the appearance to the two disciples journeying towards Emmaus, which is more fully described by St Luke (Luk 24:13-35).
he appeared ] “ he is schewid,” Wyclif. This word in the original is applied to our Lord’s “manifestations” of Himself after His resurrection ( a) by St Mark twice, here and Mar 16:14; ( b) by St John three times, Joh 21:1; Joh 21:14; ( c) by St Paul to our “manifestation” in our real character at the Last Judgment, 2Co 5:10 (comp. 1Co 4:5); ( d) by the same Apostle to the “manifestation” of Christ at His second coming, Col 3:4. The word points here to a change in the Person of our Lord after His resurrection. He is the same and yet not the same. ( a) The same. There are the well-known intonations of His voice, and the marks in His hands and feet (Joh 20:20; Joh 20:25); and He eats before His Apostles, converses with them, blesses them. And yet He is ( b) not the same. His risen Body is no longer subject to the laws of time and space. He comes we know not whence. He goes we know not whither. Now He stands in the midst of the Apostles (Joh 20:19); now He vanishes out of their sight (Luk 24:31). He knows now of no continued sojourn on earth. He “ appears from time to time ” (Act 1:3); He “ manifests ” Himself to chosen witnesses, as seemeth Him good.
in another form ] It is plain from St Luk 24:16 that He was not at the time recognised. This appearance would seem to have been vouchsafed early in the afternoon of the day of the Resurrection.
unto two of them ] The name of one was Cleopas = Cleopatros, not the Clopas of Joh 19:25, and another whose name is not known. Some have conjectured it was Nathanael, others the Evangelist St Luke.
as they walked ] from Jerusalem in the direction of the village of Emmaus. St Luke says it was sixty stadia (A. V. “threescore furlongs”), or about 7 miles from Jerusalem. From the earliest period it was identified by Christian writers with the Emmaus on the border of the plain of Philistia, afterwards called Nicopolis ( 1Ma 3:40 ), situated some 20 miles from Jerusalem. Afterwards it was identified with the little village of el-Kubeibeh, about 3 miles west of the ancient Mizpeh, and 9 miles from Jerusalem. The true site has yet to be settled.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
He appeared in another form – In a form unlike his ordinary appearance so much so that they did not at first know him. See the notes at Luke 24:13-31. As they walked and went into the country. To Emmaus, Luk 24:13.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Mar 16:12
After that He appeared in another form.
The changing form of the unchanging Saviour
I. Christ has a form. Eliphaz said (Job 4:15-16). Not thus is the Lord Jesus presented to us in the New Testament. Throughout His earthly life He appears, not in uncertain and wavering lines, but in all the distinctness and power of a human personality. And during the forty days it is the same. The corporeity of the Redeemer is glorified, but it is still the man Christ Jesus with all His individual characteristics. In our day strong endeavours are being made to get rid of the form of Christ; to substitute what is vague and visionary for the definite and palpable truth as it is in Jesus. The prophet says, The heart is deceitful. Half this, it seems, is true; the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately good, for modern introspection has found in it a Messiah, a Church, and a Bible. Let us enter our protest against these endeavours to reject a substantive religion.
1. We have those who reject the historical Christ on behalf of a mystical Christ. Spiritual men, we are told, attain positions which render historical saviours redundancies. They find a diviner Christ in their heart. But, my brethren, can we forego the Christ who is painted with such severe realism in the New Testament for that idealistic Christ whom men assume to find in their own heart? Must we vaporize the Christ of the Gospels into that formless, bloodless Christ known in certain quarters as the inward, the spiritual, the eternal Christ? Surely not. If we reject the historic Christ we shall soon have no Christ at all, for the Christ we find in our heart is simply the reflection of the historic Christ. What Christ did Morison find in the heart of the Chinese? or Carey in the heart of the Hindoo? or John Hunt in the heart of the Fijian? A very equivocal Christ, surely!
2. We have those who reject the visible Church for the invisible Church. The Church of God does not exist, we are told, as a visible institution. The external Church-sacraments, ritual, ministers, and impertinences. God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth. Once more Christ is to become disembodied and formless; His Church is to be sublimated into that featureless shade known as Plymouthism. Against this etherealization we must protest also. The true Church, which is Christs body, will resemble Christs resurrection body; being at once spiritual and corporeal; heavenly and earthly; invisible, as its deepest life is hid in God, and yet revealing in its organisation and government and ordinances the power and grace of its immortal Head; with human features and human raiment, and yet standing before the world, as the Master stood on the Mount, transfigured in a glory altogether unearthly and Divine.
3. We have those who reject dogmatic theology for subjective truth. Some of these reject the Scriptures altogether-looking into the heart they find a surer Bible. They spurn a book revelation; the eternal truth is wronged by any attempt to give it form. Or, if revelation is accepted, no form of sound words must be allowed; the teachings of revelation must not be expressed in any distinct and definite doctrine. They must have the milky way where all is nebulous and undistinguished light; they cannot tolerate the astronomy which for practical purposes makes a map of the stars; they must have the light-the pure, white, orbless light-and look with contempt on Sir Isaac Newton who with the prism breaks up the light for human uses. The mysticism which rejects the orb, which rejects the prism, forgets the limitations of man, and the practical needs of human life. The Word of God and the creed of His Church are sun and rainbow, one shedding the light, the other analyzing it, and both essential for the illumination and pacification of the world.
II. The form of Christ is susceptible of change. In another form. The form of Christ still changes, as perhaps all forms change. There are constant and legitimate changes in the presentment of Christ; in the expression of evangelical doctrine; in the ritual and government of Christs Church. Christ changes the form of His manifestation for great ends.
1. That the form shall not stand between us and the Saviour Himself. We can only know Christ through the form, and up to a certain point any particular form may help us, but at length the form instead of being a medium of revelation may become a screen. Spiritual meaning evaporates from the best definitions; ceremonies are emptied of their meaning; and the Church order which once aided the gospel may become inoperative and obstructive. The form may become a darkened glass to hide Christ, and lest this should be the case the form is ever being changed so that we may all with open face behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord.
2. That He may make Himself known to men of the most diverse character and circumstance. It seems very probable that the appearance of Christ was altered from time to time during the forty days to meet the several cases of the disciples. Our religion, thank God, is for the world, and it has all the richness and versatility of a universal faith. What a scene of infinite variety is this world of ours! How it teems with individuality, originality, eccentricity, divergence, contrast! So the Christian Church does not come with stereotyped language, a rigid ritual, an unalterable rubric, but it meets the infinite richness of human nature with infinite flexibility and inexhaustible resource. Christ comes in many forms that He may meet the multitudiousness and manifoldness of the race.
3. That He may become the Saviour of all generations. With the perpetual and inevitable changes of time Christ constantly reappears in new forms. The world does not outgrow Christ, but Christ confronts successive generations in new forms, appropriate forms, richer forms. Christianity never becomes obsolete; in the midst of a new world it stands forth in a new form, but with all its ancient power and grace. The old truth speaks in new language; the old spirit passes into new vessels; the old life pulsates in new organizations; the old purpose is accelerated by a new programme. The Church of Christ does not present the spectacle of an antique corporation, but it is strong, fresh, aggressive, and hopeful a ever today (Psa 110:2-3). The new religion, what is that, Positivism? No, Positivism is the new superstition; Christianity is the new religion – the old religion and the new. This earth is old, very old, and yet today when you look at the primrose, the anemone, and all the fresh young beauty of the spring, you feel it is the new earth also. So is it with Christianity. Older than the hills, it is vital, and fresh and fruitful as ever. The Christianity of St. Paul, of Chrysostom, of Bernard, of John Howe, of John Wesley, produces at this very moment the brightest, grandest, happiest thoughts and things of the modern world. The word of the Lord endureth forever, and this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. Observe-
III. That under the changing form are abiding characteristics. For a time the eyes of the disciples were holden, and they knew not with whom they talked, but in the end they recognized their Master. How shall we recognise the Master? Under changing forms how shall we be sure of His presence? There are many anti-Christs in the world; many creeds and doctrines set forth as Christs which are not Christs. The old Scandinavian heroes after eating an ox are fabled as making another to grow in its hide the next day. Many in modern times have caught the trick of denying the vital facts and doctrines of the gospel, and then substituting vain dreams of their own under the language, institutions, and symbols of Christianity. But yet we need hardly be deceived.
1. There is the sign of reality. John writes (2Jn 1:7.) Let us turn from all those who would turn Christ into an abstraction or personification.
2. There is the sign of glory. In the beginning of their intercourse with the stranger Cleophas and his companion had no exalted idea of the stranger, but as they conversed with Him their sense of His greatness grew until they knew Him to be their risen Lord. They recognized the sign of His divinity. Where the glory of the Divine, the Risen, the Reigning Lord does not shine forth, this is a deceiver and anti-Christ.
3. There is the sign of sacrifice. It has been conjectured that in the breaking of the bread the disciples saw the mark of the nails in the Saviours hands. However this may be, their mind was full of the sufferings of Christ, and they recognized in Him the Victim of Calvary. Let us, like the monk in the old legend, ask for the print of the nails. The true gospel is the gospel of the cross; the true ministry confesses, I am determined to know nothing among men, but Jesus Christ and Him crucified; the true worship ascribes salvation to Him who has washed us from our sins in His own blood. The form may change, but by the tokens of His Passion, by the marks received for me, all His people discern Him with exultation and assurance. (W. L. Watkinson.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 12. He appeared – unto two of them] These were the two who were going to Emmaus. The whole account is given by Luke, Lu 24:13-34, where see the notes.
Dr. Lightfoot’s criticism upon this passage is worthy of notice.
“That, in the verses immediately going before, the discourse is of the two disciples going to Emmaus, is without all controversy. And then how do these things consist with that relation in Luke, who saith, That they two, returning to Jerusalem, found the eleven gathered together, and they that were with them; who said, The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon? Lu 24:34. The word , saying, evidently makes those to be the words , of the eleven, and of those that were gathered together with them; which, when you read the versions, you would scarcely suspect. For when that word is rendered by the SYRIAC, [Syriac] cad amrin; by the ARABIC, [Arabic] wehom yekolon; by the VULGATE, dicentes; by the ITALIAN, dicendo; by the FRENCH, disans; by the ENGLISH, saying; who, I pray, would take it in another sense, than that those two that returned from Emmaus said, The Lord is risen indeed, c.? But in the original Greek, when it is the accusative case, it is plainly to be referred to the eleven disciples, and those that were together with them as if they had discoursed among themselves of the appearance made to Peter, either before, or now in the very access of those two coming from Emmaus. And yet, says this our evangelist, that when those two had related the whole business, they gave no credit to them; so that, according to Luke, they believed Christ was risen, and had appeared to Simon, before they told their story; but, according to Mark, they believed it not, no, not when they had told it. The reconciling therefore of the evangelists is to be fetched thence, that those words pronounced by the eleven, , c., The Lord is risen indeed, &c., do not manifest their absolute confession of the resurrection of Christ, but a conjectural reasoning of the sudden and unexpected return of Peter. I believe that Peter was going with Cleophas into Galilee, and that being moved with the words of Christ, told him by the women, Say to his disciples and Peter, I go before you into Galilee-think with yourself how doubtful Peter was, and how he fluctuated within himself after his threefold denial, and how he gasped to see the Lord again, if he were risen, and to cast himself an humble suppliant at his feet. When therefore he heard these things from the women, (and he had heard it indeed from Christ himself, while he was yet alive, that when he arose he would go before them into Galilee,) and when the rest were very little moved with the report of his resurrection, nor as yet stirred from that place, he will try a journey into Galilee, and Alpheus with him which, when it was well known to the rest, and they saw him return so soon and so unexpectedly – Certainly, say they, the Lord is risen, and hath appeared to Peter, otherwise he had not so soon come back again. And yet, when he and Cleophas open the whole matter, they do not yet believe even them.”
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Of this appearance St. Luke gives us a very large account, Luk 24:13-35.
See Poole on “Luk 24:13“, and following verses to Luk 24:35.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
12. After that he appeared inanother form(compare Lu24:16).
unto two of them as theywalked, and went into the countryThe reference here, ofcourse, is to His manifestation to the two disciples going to Emmaus,so exquisitely told by the Third Evangelist (see on Lu24:13, &c.).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
After that,…. A little time, or some few hours after, on the selfsame day; see Lu 24:13;
he appeared in another form: it seems to have been the form, or habit of a gardener that he appeared in to Mary; since she thought him to be one, and to be the gardener that belonged to the garden, in which the sepulchre was: but now it was in another form, or habit, that he appeared; very likely in the habit of a Scribe, or doctor; since he took upon him to expound the Scriptures to the persons he appeared to; as also took bread, and blessed it, when at supper with them, Lu 24:27. According to the Jewish canons m
“if two persons eat together, and one of them is a Scribe, and the other an unlearned man, , “the Scribe blesses”, and the unlearned man is excused.”
This is not to be understood of any change in the shape of his body, or the features of his face; for as soon as their eyes were opened, which had been before held, they knew him perfectly well: whereas, if there had been such an alteration made in him, that he could not have been known for the same, there would have been no need of holding their eyes, that they should not know him, Lu 24:16. This appearance was
unto two of them; one of them was Cleophas, or Alphaeus, which is the same, Lu 24:18; the other is by some n thought to be Simon Peter, from what is said in Lu 24:34 though others o think it was Nathanael, and others p Luke the evangelist, who conceals his own name, when he mentions the other; and some q that his name was Ammaon, which perhaps may be through mistake of the place, Emmaus, where they were going, for the name of one of them, and the appearance to them was,
as they walked, and went into the country: to a country village called Emmaus, about sixty furlongs, or seven miles and a half from Jerusalem; see Lu 24:13.
m T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 45. 2. n Lightfoot, Hor. in. v. 13. & in Luk. xxiv. 13. o Epiphan contra Haeres. l. 1. Haeres. 23. p Vid. Theophylact. in Luc. xxiv. 13. q Ambros in Luc. 12. 49. & 24.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
After these things ( ). Only here in Mark. Luke tells us that it was on the same day (Lu 24:13).
In another form ( ). It was not a or transfiguration like that described in 9:2. Luke explains that their eyes were holden so that they could not recognize Jesus (Lu 24:16). This matchless story appears in full in Lu 24:13-32.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
After these things [ ] . An expression never used by Mark.
Another form [ ] . More correctly, a different form.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “After that He had appeared,” (meta de tauta ephanerothe) “Then after these things He appeared,” that same afternoon, the first day of the week, Luk 24:13-15].
2) “Unto two of them, as they walked,” (dusin eks auton en hetera morphe peripatousin) “Unto two of them, in a different form (body appearance), as they were walking,” near the village of Emmaus, about six miles northeast of Jerusalem, Luk 24:13.
3) “And went into the country.” (proeuomenois eis argon) “And going into the country,” Luk 24:15.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(12-13) After that he appeared in another form.See Notes on Luk. 24:13-35.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
12. After that Mark here selects a second appearance of Jesus, which is more fully described in Luk 24:13. The place in the country was Emmaus, some eight miles from Jerusalem. Dr. Thomson identifies Emmaus with the present Kuriet el’Aineb, situated on the road to Jaffa on the dividing ridge between plain and mountains. By that power of appearing at will under various forms to human senses, which we have above described as belonging to supernatural beings, our Lord at first conceals himself from their knowledge, but finally resumes his well known appearance to their vision.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And after these things he was revealed in another form to two of them as they walked in the country, and they went away and told it to the rest. Nor did they believe them.’
Having appeared to one, Jesus now appeared to two. This confirms His desire to test His disciples. They now receive testimony at the mouth of two further witnesses that Jesus was indeed risen.
This incident is described in full in Luk 24:13-35, but here alone the continued attitude of unbelief is stressed. It is merely assumed in Luke. This continued stress on the unbelief of the disciples points to a very early date for the narrative.
‘In another form.’ To Mary He had appeared like a gardener, to the two He appeared as a traveller. There was a deliberate attempt at slow recognition. There was to be no danger of it being seen as an hallucination. Whether He deliberately altered His appearance, or whether His resurrection body presented Him in a way that was different from His earthly appearance so that recognition was not immediate, cannot be established. We know only that Mary first recognised Him by His voice, and that the two recognised Him when He engaged in a familiar action. They may well have thought He reminded them of Jesus but were quite well aware that He could not be. And He had shown no sin of recognition. They only appreciated the truth when He broke bread in the familiar way.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The appearance to the Emmaus disciples:
v. 12. After that He appeared in another form unto two of them as they walked and went into the country.
v. 13. And they went and told it unto the residue; neither believed they them. This is undoubtedly a summary of the afternoon’s events, as related by Luk 24:13-35. In a different form He came to them on the way, as these two were on their way to Emmaus, in an usual dress or bearing, as is evident from Luke’s remark that their eyes were holden. This second appearance should have convinced all of the disciples, not merely the apostles, though, for that matter, there were some that doubted even among them. But even now most of the rest, of the disciples at large, believed them not. That was the situation on the evening of Easter Day, in spite of an appearance to Peter that took place sometime in the course of the day, and in spite of the joyful call of those that had gained the conviction of His having risen.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mar 16:12-13 . A meagre statement of the contents of Luk 24:13-35 , yet provided with a traditional explanation ( ), and presenting a variation ( ) which betrays as its source [184] not Luke himself, but a divergent tradition.
] ( after what was narrated in Mar 16:9-11 ) does not occur at all in Mark, often as he might have written it: it is an expression foreign to him. How long after, does not appear. According to Luke, it was still on the same day.
] , Mar 16:10 .
] euntibus , not while they stood or sat or lay, but as they walked . More precise information is then given in : while they went into the country .
] Mar 16:14 ; Joh 21:1 , He became visible to them , was brought to view. The expression does not directly point to a “ghostlike” appearance (in opposition to de Wette), since it does not of itself, although it does by , point to a supernatural element in the bodily mode of appearance of the risen Lord. This is not to be referred to other clothing and to an alleged disfigurement of the face by the sufferings borne on the cross (comp. Grotius, Heumann, Bolten, Paulus, Kuinoel, and others), but to the bodily form , that was different from what His previous form had been, which the tradition here followed assumed in order to explain the circumstance that the disciples, Luk 24:16 , did not recognise Jesus who walked and spoke with them.
Mar 16:13 . ] these also , as Mary had done, Mar 16:10 .
] to the others , Mar 16:10 ; Mar 16:12 .
.] not even them did they believe. A difference of the tradition from that of Luk 24:34 , not a confusion with Luk 24:41 , which belongs to the following appearance (in opposition to Schulthess, Fritzsche, de Wette). It is boundless arbitrariness of harmonizing to assume, as do Augustine, de consens. evang. iii. 25, Theophylact, and others, including Kuinoel, that under in Luk 24:34 , and also under the unbelievers in the passage before us, we are to think only of some , and those different at the two places; while Calvin makes the distribution in such a manner, that they had doubted at first , but had afterwards believed! Bengel gives it conversely. According to Lange, too, they had been believing, but by the message of the disciples of Emmaus they were led into new doubt. Where does this appear? According to the text, they believed neither the Magdalene nor even the disciples of Emmaus.
[184] De Wette wrongly thinks (following Storr, Kuinoel, and others) here and repeatedly, that an interpolator would not have allowed himself to extract so freely . Our author, in fact, wrote not as an interpolator of Mark (how unskilfully otherwise must he have gone to work!), but independently of Mark , for the purpose of completing whose Gospel, however, this fragment was subsequently used.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
(12) After that, he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. (13) And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. (14) Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
We never can sufficiently bless the LORD for his gracious condescension, in those repeated appearances he made to his disciples. But how astonishing is it to behold their great unbelief. No doubt for the greater confirmation of the faith the LORD had so appointed it; for it wholly removes the ridiculous charge of the Jews, that while the soldiers slept, the disciples should have taken away the body of CHRIST from the sepulchre; when we find that evidence upon evidence did not prove sufficient for a while to bring those poor timid disciples into the heart’s conviction of our LORD’s being risen from the dead. See Mat 28 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
Ver. 14. See Luk 24:36 ; Joh 20:19 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
12. ] is not found in Mark , though many opportunities occurred for using it. This verse epitomizes the events on the journey to Emmaus, Luk 24:13-35 .
, though in general accord with Luke’s narrative, is not accurate in detail. It was not as they walked , but as they sat at meat that He was manifested to them.
a slight difference from Luk 24:15-16 , which relates as the reason why they did not know Him, that their eyes were holden , his being in his usual form being declared by : but see notes there.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mar 16:12-14 . , afterwards (only here in Mk.); vaguely introducing a second appearance in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. , to two of the friends of Jesus previously referred to, not of the Eleven. Cf. with Luk 24:13 . It is not only the same fact, but the narrative here seems borrowed from Lk. , in a different form. Serving no purpose here, because the fact it accounts for, the non-recognition of Jesus by the two disciples (Luk 24:16 ), is not mentioned. : for in Lk. The use of in the sense of being manifested to, in Mar 16:12 , is peculiar to this section (again in Mar 16:14 ).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
After. Greek. meta. App-104.
that = these things.
appeared = was manifested. Greek. phaneroo. App-106. Not the same word as in Mar 16:9.
in. Greek en. App-104.
another = different. Greek. heteros. App-124.
of = out of. Greek. ek. App-104.
as they walked, &c. See Luk 24:13-35.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
12.] is not found in Mark, though many opportunities occurred for using it. This verse epitomizes the events on the journey to Emmaus, Luk 24:13-35.
, though in general accord with Lukes narrative, is not accurate in detail. It was not as they walked, but as they sat at meat that He was manifested to them.
-a slight difference from Luk 24:15-16, which relates as the reason why they did not know Him, that their eyes were holden, his being in his usual form being declared by : but see notes there.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mar 16:12. , another [different]) This is the intermediate step of His revelation between His announcement of the fact by messengers, and His manifest appearance: just as the number two [viz. of those to whom He here appears] is intermediate between the one single female messenger and the many witnesses.-[ , into the country) towards Emmaus.-V. g.]
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Mar 16:12-13
21. JESUS APPEARS TO TWO IN THE COUNTRY
Mar 16:12-13
(Luk 24:13-35)
12 And after these things he was manifested in another form–Different from what they had before seen him. In some way, we know not how, his appearance was changed.
unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country.–The name of one of them was Cleopas. (Luk 24:18.) They were going, that day, “to a village named Emmaus.” This is a brief reference by Mark to an incident told with great minuteness of detail by Luke. (Luk 24:13-35.)
13 And they went away and told it unto the rest:–To those disciples who remained in Jerusalem, especially the eleven. “And they rose up that very hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them.” (Luk 24:33.)
neither believed they them.–Not only did they disbelieve Mary Magdalene, but also these two witnesses.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Luk 24:13-32
Reciprocal: Mar 9:2 – transfigured Luk 24:16 – General Luk 24:35 – General Joh 20:14 – and knew Joh 21:4 – but Act 13:31 – he was
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Chapter 29.
“In Another Form”
“After that He appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.”-Mar 16:12, Mar 16:13.
In the previous chapter I said that this concluding paragraph gives a kind of synopsis of our Lord’s post-Resurrection appearances.
The Appearance to the Two Disciples.
We have an illustration of what I meant in these two verses. The appearance to the two disciples as they walked on their way into the country is no doubt the appearance to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus. As Luke tells it for us it is one of the most exquisite of the Resurrection stories. How Cleopas and his unknown friend set out on that eight mile walk to Emmaus; how a stranger joined them and entered into conversation with them; how He gave them the most moving and delightful Bible lesson they had ever received in their lives, proving to them that far from making Messiahship impossible, suffering and sacrifice were its very badge and sign: how in the interest of the conversation Emmaus was reached before they were aware; how the stranger whose talk had so fascinated and warmed their hearts made as though He would go further; how the two disciples, eager to hear more of His wonderful speech, pressed Him to stay with them; how He had sat down with them at their simple meal; and how at length He was known to them in the breaking of bread, and they recognised that the marvellous stranger was none other than their beloved Lord Himself, come to life again. How all this happened Luke tells us in one of those passages to which we continually turn, finding in it a spring of inexhaustible instruction and delight. But here the story is compressed into two verses, giving us the bare fact, that Christ did so appear unto two disciples as they walked into the country. And yet even in this brief statement there are one or two arresting things, that open up great avenues for thought and speculation.
“Another Form,” but the same Lord.
His Compassion.
I have been struck and arrested by that phrase “in another form,” “in a different form,” “altered in appearance.” For the phrase calls attention to one characteristic of our risen Lord. His Resurrection had made a difference to Him; He was altered in “appearance.” But He had not altered a bit in spirit. His love had not altered. His exaltation did not make Him distant with His friends. This is obvious from what we are told of what He said and did after His Passion. He never could look upon distressed and sorrowing people in His days of His flesh without wishing to help them. So, when He saw Mary sobbing her heart out at the tomb, His word, “Mary,” transfigured sorrow into triumph. He never could look even upon physical want in the days of His flesh without wishing to minister to it. “I have compassion on the multitude, they have been with Me three days and have nothing to eat.” And so He provided for them that bountiful meal out in the wilderness. And in just the same way His heart was moved with sympathy for those men who had toiled all night and caught nothing, and who were drawing near to the shore disappointed, cold and hungry. And so when they stepped out, they found a fire of coals burning and fish laid thereon and bread. He was pitiful towards those who had sin on their souls. He was eager above all things to lift that load, to bring peace to the troubled conscience. “Son, be of good cheer, thy Sins are forgiven thee,” He said to the paralytic who had been brought into His presence. To the woman who was sobbing out her shame at His feet He said, “Thy sins are forgiven thee, go in peace.” And so, exactly, He was quick and eager to bring peace to the soul of that disciple who had lived in an agony of remorse and shame ever since his denial in the judgment hall. His first message was one that conveyed the assurance of pardon and abiding love, “Go, tell His disciples and Peter.” There was no change in the spirit of the risen Lord. And this likeness extended even to His personal ways. I am not going to etherealise Jesus, to depersonalise Him, so to spiritualise Him as to spiritualise Him clean away. Personality abides, and Jesus is a person. Even beyond death He retained certain personal characteristics. Mary knew Him by His voice. He was known by these two disciples “in the breaking of bread.”
“Altered in Appearance.”
But though the same He was different; not in essential things, but in outward guise. That is as unmistakably proved by the Resurrection stories, as the other fact that He was essentially the same. There is one striking and significant feature about out Lord’s various Resurrection appearances. Scarcely any of those to whom He revealed Himself recognised Him at the first. Recall what the Gospels tell us. When He appeared to Mary, Mary did not recognise Him; she supposed Him to be the gardener. When He appeared to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, they walked the whole distance to the village without even guessing Who He was. They took Him to be some pilgrim-stranger who had come to Jerusalem for the feast. When He showed Himself to the Eleven on the first Easter evening, they did not recognise Him; not until He showed them His hands and His side did they come to believe it was their Lord Himself. When He appeared to the five disciples fishing on the Lake they seem to have taken Him for a passing traveller. It was only when the nets enclosed a great multitude of fishes that the truth flashed upon John’s soul, and he said to Peter, “It is the Lord.” When He appeared to above five hundred brethren at once on that mountain in Galilee, the mount on which He had preached the great Sermon, and to which He was accustomed to retire and pray, He was so different that not all who saw Him believed that He was Jesus, for “some doubted.”
Faith and Sight.
It needs a certain preparation of soul and spirit to be able to see Jesus. Before sight can be established, there must be not only an objective and external world to be seen, but also an eye to see it. A man may say, “I can see nothing.” It does not follow that there is nothing to be seen. “I never see such sunsets,” said a lady to Turner. “Don’t you wish you could, madam?” was the reply. The lady wished to imply that there were no such sunsets to be seen. Turner’s plain hint was that the sunsets were there, but that she had not the power to see them. And just as there are dim-sighted, short-sighted, and blind people, as far as physical vision is concerned, so there are people whose spiritual vision is defective. They are dim-sighted, short-sighted, blind souls. Because some people see no beauty in Him that they should desire Him, it does not follow that Christ is not the chiefest among ten thousand and the altogether lovely. The defect is not in Christ, but in the men who look at Him. The chief priests crucified Christ because He said He was the Son of God. They called Him a blasphemer. It does not follow that He was not the Son of God. It was the priests who were spiritually blind. “These things are spiritually discerned.” You must have an eye, and the clearness of the spiritual eye depends upon the purity of the heart, That is why some people, when they heard a voice from heaven, said that it thundered; and others who came into contact with the risen Christ did not recognise their Lord.
“Another Form.”
“Another form.” Has this no bearing upon our own condition in the life beyond? There are some things which death cannot change. It cannot touch character; it cannot change personality. We shall be essentially the same people the other side of the grave as we are on this. Life is continuous. We shall retain our identity; and yet we shall be “altered in appearance.” Our “forms” will be changed. But it is not this gross material body that we shall possess in the life beyond. We shall possess then a body which shall be a fitting sheath for the soul; which shall be the visible expression, so to speak, of the soul. In that sense, as Paul says, “we shall all be changed.” As to the nature of that heavenly “form” which we shall then wear, it is idle to speculate. We can see that our Lord’s Resurrection body was not subject to the laws of time and space. It was wholly different from the “body” He wore while a workman in Nazareth, and a preacher in Galilee and Jerusalem. But wherein the difference consisted it is impossible for us to say. Let us be content with the great words of the Apostle Paul. “It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body” (1Co 15:42-44).
Christ Revealing Himself to Many.
But the phrase “in another form,” suggests what appears to me to be an abiding feature in the ministry of Christ. Is He not continually appearing to men in “another form”? The old Greeks had a legend about an old man of the sea called Proteus, that he had the power of appearing in many shapes and disguises. People used to wish to consult him because he was supposed to have the power of prophecy. But now Proteus would appear as a fish, and now as a horse, and so on. Those who did not know his secret were apt to miss him; but those who held on to him, no matter the guise he assumed, were always rewarded, for to them Proteus would reveal himself in his true shape, and tell them what they wanted to know. That is simply legend; but, in what the Greeks used to say of the fabled Proteus, there is a suggestion of what really occurs in the case of our Lord. He comes to men in different forms. Ho does not walk the earth today in visible presence. But nevertheless He has not left it. He is with us always to the end of the world.
-In Many Ways.
He comes to us today in the person of His Spirit. The Spirit pleads with men today, by the voice of conscience, by the influence of holy parents, by the words of this old Book, by the appeals of the Christian preacher. And when conscience is thus stirred, and the heart is thus touched, Christ has come to our house as surely as He went to Zaccheus’ long ago; He is calling us just as clearly as He called Matthew from his toll-booth. Looked at from another point of view, He comes to us in the varied experiences of life. He comes to us sometimes in the shape of a great joy. And He comes to us, sometimes, perhaps oftener, in the shape of a great sorrow. He comes to us, again, in the persons of His people. “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me”? Saul had been haling humble men and women and casting them into prison. And all unthinking he had been doing over again what the priests and the soldiers had done to Jesus. He had been persecuting Him, scourging Him, crucifying Him afresh. “I am Jesus Whom thou persecutest,” said the voice to him. Jesus was on the earth, still in the person of His persecuted and suffering people. He comes in the shape of that lonely person who needs friendship, or that bereaved person who needs comfort; He comes in the shape of the sick who need healing, and the weak who need help, and the hungry who cry for bread. That is the “different form” in which Christ presents Himself to men and women today. Let us beware of missing Him.
-Not in the same Form to All.
Does not the phrase also suggest this, that different ages and different people may view Christ rather differently? There is no one definite, stereotyped, unalterable conception of Christ. You cannot find it even in the New Testament. You know how varied and different are the faces of Christ which the artists put on their canvases. There are no two pictures of Christ the same. The fact is each artist depicts his own Christ, the Christ of his own imagination and affection, the Christ as He appears to him. And He appears to no two in exactly the same form. The difference in the artistic representation of Christ is but symbolic of the difference in men’s thoughts about Him. There are differences, as I have already said, even in the New Testament pictures of Him. Peter’s Christ, and John’s Christ, and Paul’s Christ, they are all at bottom the same Christ, the Christ Who loved men’s souls, and died for their sins, and rose again in triumph on the third day. But in each Apostolic picture there is a difference in the point of view. He appears to James perhaps mainly as the Lord of Conduct, and to John as the Illumination of the Soul, and to Paul as the mighty Saviour from Sin. I do not think we ought to expect all men to construe the person of Christ in exactly the same way. Augustine after a life of sensuality and sin will think of Christ in one way; the great Greek father Origen will think of Him in another; a man who has been rescued from lowest depths of vice will emphasise Christ’s redeeming love; a man like Emerson who kept through life an almost stainless soul, will think of Him mainly as the revelation of God’s love and life. But it is the “same Jesus.” Just because He is so rich and full, He appears to the infinite varieties of men in different forms, according to their several needs, and is able to satisfy the wants of all.
And as it has been with individuals, so is it with the ages. Every age needs a new Christ, and finds a new Christ. As the years pass, men grow in knowledge. And as they grow in knowledge, old intellectual statements become obsolete and impossible. And so we must expect views of Christ to alter. They have altered, but we need have no fear that Christ is going to be superseded or discarded. There is such infinite fulness in Him that every age finds its satisfaction in Him. He appears to every new age, as it is born, “in another form.”
But still the same Jesus.
And yet the same Jesus. Amid the almost infinite changes, essentially the same. We have advanced far since Augustine’s or Luther’s or John Wesley’s days. But still to us, as to them, He is the Revelation of God, our Redeemer from Sin. The divine sacrificial love of Christ, that is the central and essential thing. And that abides. It is not “another form” of Jesus we get if the Cross is neglected. It is another Jesus Who is not another. “And He showed them His hands and His side,” that is how the disciples knew Jesus. “Show me the nail-print,” said an old saint in the cell to a being who pretended to be the Christ. It is the infallible sign. There may be changes in men’s views of Christ, changes that sometimes perplex us, but if it is the Christ with the nail-prints in His hands we see, we can be content. “It is the Lord.”
Fuente: The Gospel According to St. Mark: A Devotional Commentary
2
Appeared in another form. Luk 24:16 explains that the disciples’ eyes were holden (restrained) so that they did not know him. Doubtless the unusual character of the report so overcame them that they were confused. Under such conditions a person whom they well knew would not look natural.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mar 16:12. After these things. This expression, peculiar to this section, marks definitely a second appearance, after the first (Mar 16:9). The appearance to Peter is not mentioned; the author is emphasizing the unbelief of the eleven, so that he chooses a revelation to two, not of their number.
Was manifested (a different word from that used in Mar 16:9), etc. See Luk 24:13-35, where this manifestation is narrated with richness of detail.
In another form, so that they did not recognize Him. Luke, says: their eyes were holden. But there was some actual difference in the bodily appearance of our Lord.
Two of them, of the disciples in the wider sense (Mar 16:10-11).
As they walked, to Emmaus. The manifestation took place at the close of the walk, but this is the language of brevity. Had the account been more explicit, a captious criticism would have asserted that this verse was copied from Luke.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Mar 16:12-13. He appeared in another form unto two of them, &c. Of which, see notes on Luk 24:13-33. And they went and told it unto the residue Namely, the same evening. Neither believed they them That is, some of them did not believe, though others of them did, who, though they had given little credit to the reports of the women, supposing they were occasioned more by imagination than reality; yet, as appears from Luk 24:34, when Simon declared that he had seen the Lord, they began to think that he was risen indeed. Their belief, therefore, was not a little confirmed by the arrival of the two disciples, who declared that the Lord had appeared to them also.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
CXXXVII.
THIRD AND FOURTH APPEARANCES OF JESUS.
(Sunday afternoon.)
bMARK XVI. 12, 13; cLUKE XXIV. 13-35; eI. COR. XV. 5.
b12 And after these things he was manifested in another form [i. e., another manner] unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country. c13 And behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus [Several sites have been suggested, but the village of Emmaus has not yet been identified beyond dispute. Its location is probably marked by the ruins called el Kubeibeh, which lies northwest of Jerusalem], which was threescore furlongs from Jerusalem. [el Kubeibeh is distant seven and thirteen-sixteenths of a mile, or sixty-two and one-half furlongs, from Jerusalem.] 14 And they communed with each other of all these things which had happened. 15 And it came to pass, while they communed and questioned together, that Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. 16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. [Jesus himself designedly restrained their vision, that, unlike John ( Joh 20:8, Joh 20:9), that might see the resurrection of Jesus in the Scriptures before they saw it in reality.] 17 And he said unto them, What communications are these that ye have one with another, as ye walk? And they stood still, looking sad. [Our Lord’s abrupt question brought them to a standstill. We may well imagine that they considered his interruption very unwelcome. But his kindly mien won their confidence and they tell him all.] 18 And one of them, named Cleopas, answering said unto him, Dost thou alone sojourn in Jerusalem and not know the things which are come to pass there in these days? [Of Cleopas nothing further is known. It has been suggested that the other disciple was Luke himself. [748] This is possible, for the other Evangelists mention themselves thus impersonally. The preface to Luke’s Gospel in no way forbids us to think that he had a personal knowledge of parts of Christ’s ministry. Cleopas marveled that there could be a single man in Jerusalem who had not heard concerning the crucifixion, etc.] 19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, The things concerning Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: 20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. 21 But we hoped that it was he who should redeem Israel. [To Cleopas, redeeming Israel meant freeing the nation from the Roman yoke.] Yea and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things came to pass. 22 Moreover certain women of our company amazed us, having been early at the tomb; 23 and when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. [Rationalists might see their own reflection in these two disciples, who suppressed the statement of the women that they had seen the Lord as too idle to be repeated, and told the least marvelous part of their story–that about the angels–as too visionary to be credited. Thus the renowned Renan held that the resurrection was a story or fabrication which grew out of the hallucination of Mary Magdalene. But these two men on the way to Emmaus had less use for feminine hallucinations than even M. Renan. But in the end they believed in the resurrection because they themselves had substantial evidence of it.] 24 And certain of them that were with us [Peter and John] went to the tomb, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. [The last clause unconsciously suggests the omitted fact that the women had professed to see Christ.] 25 And he said unto them, O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Behooved it not the Christ to suffer these things, [749] and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. [The counsel of the Father revealed in the Scriptures shows that Jesus should enter into his glory through suffering. The books of Moses foretell Christ largely in types, such, as the passover, the rock in the wilderness, Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac, the day of atonement, etc., but the prophets show him forth in clear-cut predictions and descriptions. Jesus evidently applied both these divisions of Scripture to himself, making it plain to these two who were both thoughtless in mind and slow in heart. Those lacking in a knowledge of the Christology of the Old Testament are slow to believe in it. Those who know that Christology, and yet doubt the Old Testament, do so because they lack faith in the Christ therein portrayed.] 28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they were going: and he made as though he would go further. 29 And they constrained him, saying, Abide with us; for it is toward evening, and the day is now far spent. [They were loth to part with this delightful stranger who by his wonderful use of the Scriptures revived their failing faith and hope in Jesus.] And he went in to abide with them. 30 And it came to pass, when he had sat down with them to meat, he took the bread and blessed; and breaking it he gave to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. [While he was breaking the bread to supply their bodies he opened their eyes and revealed to them that it was he also who had just been feeding their hungry hearts with the truth and consolation of the divine word.] 32 And they said one to another, Was not our heart burning within us, while he spake to us in the way, while he opened to us the scriptures? [Thus they admit to each other that the joy of beholding the risen Lord was but the consummation of a joy already begun through a right understanding of the truth contained in Scripture. The sight of the Lord was sweeter because it was preceded by faith that he ought [750] thus to rise.] 33 And they rose up that very hour, b13 And they went away cand returned to Jerusalem [their news was too precious to keep. They could not sit still till the disciples in Jerusalem knew it], and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them [the women and some of the one hundred and twenty– Act 1:15], 34 saying, The Lord is risen indeed [his resurrection is not an hallucination of the women], and hath fappeared to Cephas; {cSimon.} [Paul and Luke both mention this appearance, but we have none of the details of it.] 35 And they rehearsed the things that happened in the way, and how he was known of them in the breaking of the bread. [This does not mean that they knew Jesus because of any peculiar way in which he broke the bread; it means that he was revealed at the time when he broke it.] bneither believed they them. [They now believed that Jesus had risen, but they did not believe that these two had walked and talked with him without recognizing him. *]
* NOTE.–Here again we dissent. So general a statement of unbelief would not be used when there was a mere doubt as to some of the narrated details. We prefer in our original comment to this substitution, and it was this: Mark shows us that little dependence can be placed upon the apparently strong admission which Luke records. Unable to contradict the testimony of Peter, they said, “The Lord is risen indeed;” but their hearts were, nevertheless, full of doubt. Luke himself shows this in the next section, for these professedly believing apostles took Jesus for a spirit when they saw him.
[FFG 748-751]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 12
A more full account of this interview is contained in Luke 24:13-31.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
THE RESURRECTION CONFIRMED
12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. 13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. 14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
Luk 22:14 ff records the full account of verse twelve; it is often called the road to Emmaus. Thisis an interesting study if you take time to do so.
Here is more disbelief – not to be shocked since the women went away shaking their heads as well. They saw Him die, and they did not understand/believe what the Lord said about the resurrection so why would they believe He was raised.
The Lord confronts them with their “unbelief and hardness of heart” but does not elaborate on the subject. It would be of interest to me as to why he upbraided them for it since it is not clear that any of us would have reacted much differently. It should be assumed that the Lord knew something that we do not know about the situation. If any would have believed it, it would have been the disciples that had walked with him for three years listening to His teaching, but they did not.
It is clear from the Luke passage that part of their disbelief related to the Old Testament prophecies of the Lord. He speaks to the two relating to this issue and then takes time to explain it all to them.
It is also very clear that the apostles at least were looking to Him to save Israel, in other words they believed that He was the Messiah of the Old Testament. “21 But we hoped that it was he who should redeem Israel”
Leave it to the believers – in the Old Testament God wanted Israel to proclaim Him to the world and He even set up the entire sojourner/stranger system to accept gentile believers into the Jewish fold, but they did nothing to speak of in the area of proclaiming God.
The apostles, the ones that were closest to the Lord, were given information about His resurrection and they say nothing because they did not believe it, nor understand it. The very next passage is the great commission to go into the earth preaching the Gospel and what do the believers do? They congregate in Jerusalem. God had to send persecution upon them to scatter them across the face of the earth with His good news.
In 2009 we are still, for the most part, congregating in pockets around the world to edify ourselves while the world knows nothing of the Lord Jesus Christ. Foreign Mission work is on the decline, the old timers are retiring and there is no one to replace them on the field.
God is now in the process of bringing the world to us and we still are not doing a real good job of sharing the Gospel with them. Yes, the foreigners in our country are slow to warm up to us due to the illegal alien problem (large distrust of everyone for fear of being turned in) but they are here for now and we should do what we can to share our wonderful salvation with them.
I teach a small basic computer class for low-income folks and I am sure many of them are illegal. They are very quiet, they hesitate or refuse to give their phone number, address and email address. Some have given me one or the other and I have sent material to them and they will not respond and fail to come to class. Some seem very shocked when they arrive that I am friendly and open to talk with them. Not that this is not understandable, but it makes it difficult to speakto them of the Lord.
I have found that I can at least get the Word of God into their hands. I give a CD-ROM of free software and along with it a CD-ROM with a free Bible program and a ton of evangelical commentaries along with a copy of my systematic theology. God can use this in their lives at any time that He would like.
I have not had opportunity to even ask most of them personal questions much less speak to them of Christ. Most will not even tell me where they or their husbands work and if I have no address and ask where they live they just point and say over that way.
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
16:12 {2} After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
(2) Christ appears to two other disciples and at length to the eleven.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Jesus’ appearance to two men 16:12-13 (cf. Luke 24:13-32)
This is a condensed version of Jesus’ appearance on the Emmaus road. The different (immortal) form in which Jesus appeared accounted in part for the failure of these men to recognize Him. The writer’s point seems to be the unbelief of the disciples again. Neither the report of an eyewitness nor a personal appearance opened these men’s eyes. God had to do that supernaturally, and He still does.