From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain the Gospel of Luke Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2015
Books Utilized Code Numbers at End of Chapter
Introductory Note to Chapter 24: Westcott’s attempt to estimate the time and relationship of the various resurrection day appearances in the four gospels :
The events of the first Easter Day have been tabulated by Professor Westcott, in what he terms a provisional arrangement, as follows:—
Very early on Sunday
The Resurrection, followed by the earthquake, the descent of the angel, the opening of the tomb (Matthew 28:2-4).
Mary Magdalene, Mary the [mother] of James and Salome, probably with others, start for the sepulchre in the twilight. Mary Magdalene goes before the others, and returns at once to Peter and John (John 20:1, etc.),
Her companions reach the sepulchre when the sun had risen (Mark 16:2). A vision of an angel. Message to the disciples.
Another party, among whom is Joanna, come a little later, but still in the early morning. A vision of "two young men." Words of comfort and instruction (Luke 24:4, etc.).
The visit of Peter and John (John 20:3-10). A vision of two angels to Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-13). About the same time the company of women carry their tidings to the apostles (Luke 24:10, etc.).
The Lord reveals himself to Mary Magdalene. Not long after he reveals him self, as it appears, to the company of women who are returning to the sepulchre. Charge to the brethren to go to Galilee (Matthew 28:9, etc.).
The appearance to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus.
After 4 p.m.
An appearance to St. Peter.
The appearance to the eleven and others.
In the above table one point must be specially noticed: two companies or separate groups of women are mentioned as going to the sepulchre with the same pious object of assisting in the final embalming of the sacred body.
If this be assumed to be the fact, there will be nothing improbable in the supposition that both these groups of women, all doubtless intimate friends belonging to the little company of the Master, but living probably some distance apart in Jerusalem, came together some time on the sabbath day, and then arranged to meet early on the first day at the sepulchre. Probably the spices purchased in some haste just before the sabbath commenced were judged inadequate.
In depth: Overview of resurrection day in Luke’s account : This is represented to us by Luke in the four stages following: (1) The tomb is discovered to be empty by certain of the believing women (1-11). (2) Jesus manifests Himself to two disciples, on the way to Emmaus (13-32). (3) He was meantime seen by Simon in Jerusalem (33-35). (4) He appears to the whole company, as they were comparing accounts, proves to them that He is really risen, and that this is according to the Old Testament Scriptures (36-45). (5) Solemnly commissions them to bear witness through the world of these truths (47-49).
The other Gospels mention a number of other appearances of the Saviour to His disciples prior to the ascension. The arranging of them all into a clearly consistent history is, confessedly, a perplexing task, as would be the same in the case of any exciting fact, presenting many phases to many interested persons, all whose accounts might influence the various reports concerning it, that were preserved some time after.
All that can be required in such a case is, that on some natural supposition all these reports might be true; and even this would not, ordinarily, be indispensable to their credibility [in a law case of our own age]. On such hypotheses, harmonizers of the Gospels have, more or less satisfactorily, arranged the various incidents connected with the resurrection of our Lord.
In depth: In understanding why there are sometimes tensions between the various gospel accounts of resurrection day rather than a conscious attempt at clear cut consistency, it must be remembered that they are written not so much to prove the event happened as to describe the events at the time to those who already are convinced that it was a historical reality : In all thinking on the subject, it is to be borne in mind that the facts pertaining to the great event of that day, and within the knowledge of some, were practically innumerable; that of these, each writer consciously limits himself to a selection, alluding to some which he does not relate (Matthew 28:16; Luke 24:34); that each is determined by his own character, and the specific design of his writing, in the choice which he makes; and that all have a practical, not a philosophical or dialectic end in view, namely: to show that Jesus was alive after His death and burial, so that we, believing in Him, may have eternal life. Compare John 20:31.
More particularly on this last point, it may be important to remark that none of the Synoptics, if even John, writes to prove that Jesus rose from death. This was a cardinal fact, not questioned, as would appear, by the Jews of Jerusalem, on the basis of which believers, for whom the Gospel memoirs were written, were believers (1 Corinthians 15:1-8).
All that these memoirs did, was to narrate such facts connected with the resurrection as their authorities severally furnished them, and as it comported with their respective objects in writing to mention. Quite different might have been their dealing with the facts which they relate, had they proposed them to be traversed by coldly critical unbelievers, not to say that they might have added others, for the simple purpose of averting or silencing skepticism. As it is, there is no trace of any such purpose. Thus, we have not a treatise, an argument, a polemic, but a Gospel, an announcement of glad tidings.
* * * * * *
Weymouth: And, on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices they had prepared.
WEB: But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they and some others came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared.
Young’s: And on the first of the sabbaths, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, bearing the
spices they made ready, and certain others with them,
Conte (RC): Then, on the first Sabbath, at very first light, they went to the tomb, carrying the aromatic spices that they had prepared.
24:1 Now upon the first day of the week. The Jewish Sabbath was our Saturday. The first day of the week was our Sunday. Hence, this day of the week was called the Lord's day. (Rev. i. 9.) 
This, as we saw at the close of the preceding chapter, is but the complement of the sentence there begun: “The preparations for anointing the Lord’s body were interrupted, indeed, by the rest of the Sabbath, but were resumed at the first light of the next day.” 
very early in the morning. ὄρθρου βαθέως -- Literally, at deep dawn, or the dawn being deep. It is not uncommon in Greek to find βαθύς, deep, used of time; as deep or late evening. Plutarch says of Alexander, that he supped "at deep evening;" i.e., late at night. Philo says that the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea "about deep dawn (as here), while others were yet in bed." So Socrates, in prison, asks Crito the time of day. He replies, the dawn is deep, i.e. breaking (Plato, "Crito," 43). 
Literally, “at deep dawn,” i.e., at the earliest morning twilight, “while it was yet dark” (John 20:1), though the sun began to rise before they reached the tomb (Mark 16:2). John mentions only Mary of Magdala (20:1); Matthew adds Mary, mother of James (28:1); Mark adds Salome (16:1); and Luke Joanna, verse 10. They may have gone singly or in small groups, the Marys being separate from the others. There is no discrepancy in the different narratives, although, as we might have expected, they are fragmentary and seem to reflect the varied and tumultuous emotions of those who were the first to see the Lord. The Easter music, as Lange says, is not “a monotonous chorale” but an impassioned fugue. 
Or: In the foregoing general note on the Resurrection [by Westcott], the probability has been discussed of the holy women having been divided into two companies who separately came to the sepulchre. St. Luke's notice here refers to the party who arrived the second at the tomb. 
The visit of the women to the sepulchre may have covered hours, extending from the first start from home until they left the sepulchre. 
they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared. Powdered aromatic substances and fluid perfumes appear to have been used in laying out the dead body for burial. Nothing is said of embalming—a practice not in any strict sense employed by the Hebrews; but we are told (Mark 16:1) that their design was to “anoint” the body. 
and certain others with them. The list given by Luke doesn’t claim to be complete—either because his research did not uncover them or because he simply did not consider it necessary. Although a good historian may not necessarily “leave out as much as he includes,” space and good narrative technique always imposes its length constraints. [rw]
Weymouth: But they found the stone rolled back from the tomb,
WEB: They found the stone rolled away from the tomb.
Young’s: and they found the stone having been
rolled away from the tomb,
Conte (RC): And they found the stone rolled back from the tomb.
24:2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulcher. The tomb in which the body of the "King's Son" was laid was in a garden close by the scene of the Crucifixion. It had been recently hewn out of a rock, the low ridge opposite the slight ascent of Calvary. "In front of a tomb belonging to a rich family there was generally a vestibule open to the air, then a low entrance sometimes, as in this case, on the side of a rock, leading into a square chamber of moderate dimensions, on one side of which was a place for the body, either cut some seven feet into the rock, or lengthways, three feet deep, with a low arch over it . . . The tomb had been lately made, and the door which closed the entrance, the only aperture into the tomb, was a large stone" ('Speaker's Commentary,' on Matthew 27:60). 
rolled away. This was at once a surprising and a welcome fact; because the stone used to close the entrance to the tomb was so large as to have given the women anxiety about removing it (Mark 16:3). The rolling it away somewhat favors the idea that the entrance was from the horizontal surface of the ground; yet the same term might have been employed if the door opened into the perpendicular face of a hill or rock. The latter supposition is the more probable. John uses a more general word—“taken away.” 
On their way they had considered how they should get over this difficulty, since the stone was “very great” (Mark 16:3). From Mark’s expression, “looking up,” we infer that the tomb was slightly elevated; and from John’s “lifted” that the first aperture of the tomb was horizontal. Matthew also tells us of the Angel and the Earthquake (28:2-4). 
Weymouth: and on entering they found that the body of the Lord Jesus was not there.
WEB: They entered in, and didn't find the Lord Jesus' body.
Young’s: and having gone in, they found not the
body of the Lord Jesus.
Conte (RC): And upon entering, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.
24:3 And they entered in. This could hardly have included Mary Magdalene, who, when she saw the stone removed, “runs and comes to Simon Peter” (John 20:2). 
and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. The Lord had arisen before their arrival, at the earliest dawn. More particularly we are not informed as to the time. 
No one saw Jesus rise. The angels announced the resurrection and the empty sepulchre and the subsequent appearances of Jesus confirmed the fact to the disciples 
Weymouth: At this they were in great perplexity, when suddenly there stood by them two men whose raiment flashed like lightning.
WEB: It happened, while they were greatly perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling clothing.
Young’s: And it came to pass, while they are
perplexed about this, that lo, two men stood by them in glittering apparel,
Conte (RC): And it happened that, while their minds were still confused about this, behold, two men stood beside them, in shining apparel.
24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments. i.e., in garments of dazzling brightness. Celestial beings are usually represented as clothed in white. (Acts i. 10; Dan. vii. 9; Rev. iii. 4-5, iv. 4, vii. 13-14.) It is asked sometimes, Whence did Jesus obtain His resurrection clothes? We might, with the same wisdom, ask, Whence did these angels obtain their robes of white? Who manufactures the angels' harps, or Gabriel's trump? 
It was the form of men which they saw; but the luster of their apparel was that peculiar to angelic epiphanies (John 20:12; Acts 1:10), although the appearance of Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration had probably been similar, as the raiment of Jesus Himself certainly was at that time (9:29, 30). It was the earthly parallel to the unspeakable brilliance and glory of heaven. 
much perplexed. The word means “utterly at a loss.” 
In depth: Explaining the difference in the number of angels envolved as references to different points in the same morning . Matthew mentions here but one Angel; Mark no more; Luke two. Matthew's Angel sat upon the stone, which was rolled away from the mouth of the sepulchre; Mark's sat on the right side of the sepulchre within; Luke's Angels stood by the women as they stood perplexed in the sepulchre. And John speaks of two Angels more, the one sitting at the head, the other at the feet, where the Body of Jesus had lain.
And yet in all these diversities no contradiction. The story runs smoothly thus. These pious women, mentioned here, come early to the sepulchre to embalm their Lord's Body; whilst they yet stood without for fear, this Angel in the text (Matt. xxviii. 5), that sat before the door upon the stone he had rolled away, invites them to come in, where they were no sooner entered, but they saw a second Angel sitting, who [greeted] them almost with the same words; and is he, remembered by S. Mark.
When they had awhile [examined] the bowels of the grave, and found nothing there but the desolate linen, in which their Lord's Body had been wrapped, being somewhat perplexed at the business, they were comforted by two other Angels, which immediately appeared to resolve their doubts, and sent them to the disciples to tell the news; and these are spoken of by Luke: whereupon away they haste.
Only Mary Magdalene returns again with Peter and John, who, having looked and entered into the grave, away they go; but she stands still without, and weeps, till two other Angels, as John relates, show forth themselves to stop her tears and divert her moans, and show her her Lord standing at her back.
Thus we need no Synecdoches, no strained figures to make things agree. But thus you see, Angels are "all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them, who shall be heirs of salvation" (Heb. i.). —Dr. Mark Frank.
Or : For the white-robed angel or angels in the tomb, see Mark 16:5; John 20:11, 12. On the mention, omission, and numbers of these angels Van Oosterzee quotes a very striking remark from Lessing: “Cold discrepancy-mongers, do ye not then see that the Evangelists do not count the angels? . . . There were not only two angels, there were millions of them. They appeared not always one and the same, not always the same two; sometimes this one appeared, sometimes that; sometimes on this place, sometimes on that; sometimes alone, sometimes in company; sometimes they said this, sometimes they said that.” 
Weymouth: The women were terrified; but, as they stood with their faces bowed to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you search among the dead for Him who is living?
WEB: Becoming terrified, they bowed their faces down to the earth. They said to them, "Why do you seek the living among the dead?
Young’s: and on their having become afraid, and
having inclined the face to the earth, they said to them, 'Why do ye seek the
living with the dead?
Conte (RC): Then, since they were afraid and were turning their faces toward the ground, these two said to them: "Why do you seek the living with the dead?
24:5 And as they were afraid. The cause of their fear was, doubtless, the appearance of the angels; or the word afraid may be taken in a wider sense and means agitated or troubled. 
and bowed down their faces to the earth. These words express a respectful and reverential declining their heads and looking downward, that they may not appear to gaze, which is well known to have been forbidden to the Jews upon the sight of a celestial vision. (Ex. xix. 21; Judg. xiii. 20.) 
they said unto them. One of these was speaker, although the act is naturally and properly referred to both. 
why seek ye the living among the dead? It appeared to them an act of folly to look for the Lord of Life in the abode of Death. They felt that His followers ought to have known that He was risen. 
Weymouth: He is not here. He has come back to life. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee,
WEB: He isn't here, but is risen. Remember what he told you when he was still in Galilee,
Young’s: he is not here, but was raised; remember how he spake to you, being yet in Galilee,
Conte (RC): He is not here, for he has risen. Recall how he spoke to you, when he was still in Galilee,
24:6 He is not here, but is risen. He is not here--in the sepulchre--but is risen, and has come forth from the tomb. 
remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee. 9:22; compare 19:32f. The fulfillment so exact of the former part of His prediction might well have prepared them to believe the whole of it. 
This expression shows, no less than many other similar ones, that the greater part of our Lord's discourses and sermons were delivered in Galilee. 
In depth: Non-miraculous explanations of Jesus' resurrection . Christ's real resurrection being the pivotal point of Christianity, as Paul already declares (1 Cor. 15), it has always been the center of attack, beginning with the lying reports of the rulers and the Roman soldiers (Matt. 28). Modern attempts to explain away the real sense of the Gospel story may be classified as follows:
(1) The Swoon Theory (Scheintod). Jesus had not really died on the cross, but had fallen into a death-like stupor. In the coolness of the tomb He revived and His friends nursed Him back to life. Answer: (a) the spear-thrust had certainly killed Jesus, even if He had not been dead before; (b) how could the pitiable appearance of one just recovering from wounds have given rise to such a sudden and enthusiastic belief that He was the conqueror of death? Even Strauss cast ridicule and biting sarcasm on this hypothesis.
(2) The Theory of Fraud. His friends (especially Joseph and Nicodemus) removed His body and the rumor was allowed to spread among His other disciples that He had risen. This explanation is as old as the resurrection itself (Matt. 28). Another version of this theory is that Joseph, or his family, were afraid that a crucified body might defile their tomb, and so he removed it quietly. And according to a third version the Jewish rulers themselves removed the body to deceive the disciples. Answer: Why did the rulers not say so, or show the place and remnants of the body when they made such strenuous efforts to stop Peter and Stephen from preaching the resurrection (Acts, Ch. 3-7). These theories have been almost entirely abandoned because they are so unspeakably ridiculous, and create much greater difficulties than they propose to allay.
(3) The Spiritual Resurrection. Christ remained dead in the tomb but His spirit arose in His disciples and kindled a new hope and faith. When Jesus foretold His resurrection He meant it in a figurative sense, as if He were to say: I shall die, but My cause will revive in a short time. And so it proved. After the first stupefaction was over the disciples realized that their Master, though His body was in the tomb, still existed in another state of being, and so by degrees they resumed the work which He had dropped. And this was His resurrection. Answer: This is twisting the text, a procedure which is unworthy of serious and sincere men. Let the text speak for itself, whether you believe it or not.
(4) Legendary Theory. This theory holds that the belief in the resurrection grew up during the first century, and gradually came to be accepted by a credulous and uncritical age. Answer: Legends require long time for development. On the contrary, the synoptic Gospels written within forty years of the event, and Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians (Ch. 15) written within thirty years, revealed not only the universal conviction of the Church, but a conviction not a whit stronger than that of the disciples on the day of Pentecost, six weeks after the crucifixion.
(5) Subjective Vision Theory. After their return to the familiar places in Galilee they lived over their former life with Jesus. This led to mental hallucinations, which excitable natures like Peter and Mary Magdalene objectified and materialized to such an extent that they believed they had seen Him bodily stand on the Sea of Galilee. Answer: "The critics would have us believe that the witnesses began this dreaming simultaneously, and kept at it off and on for about six weeks, the dreaming fit embracing no less than 500 persons on one of these occasions, and then suddenly ceasing so as to admit of the resurrection idea getting launched as history."
(6) An Objective, Divinely Given, Real Vision of Jesus, such as Paul had, caused by Jesus Himself for the express purpose of creating the very belief in which it issued, namely, that Jesus was the Son of God, the Messiah and spiritually alive, sitting at the right hand of God.
The chief objections to all these theories are (1) the empty tomb, (2) their violent contradiction to the reports in the Gospels, (3) their failure to account for the change in the disciples; for the psychological conditions were entirely absent. The disciples did not only not expect a resurrection but regarded the reports as "idle tales" and some of the 500 "doubted" (Lu. 24:21; Matt. 28:17). It is a gratuitous assumption to suppose that these hard-headed men could not distinguish between subjective experience and objective fact. (4) Their failure to give an adequate explanation of the origin and power of Christianity.
(5) The moral objection to these and all similar theories is, if possible, still stronger. They make not only the faith of the early Church, but the entire subsequent development and influence of the most potent and beneficent moral force the world has ever known, rest on self-deceptions, hallucinations, actual falsehoods. (6) The strong, joyful, living faith of the early Church cannot be satisfactorily accounted for except on the ground of an actual resurrection. Christ's enemies would have left no stone unturned to prevent such a report gaining ground if it had not rested on irrefutable proofs.
The consensus of opinion among evangelical critics is that no past event stands of firmer historical grounds than that Jesus being dead arose again, and that His appearance to the disciples begot their faith anew, and filled them with enthusiasm for their future work. Those who cannot personally investigate the evidence may confidently join in this conclusion.
Weymouth: when He told you that the Son of Man must be betrayed into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again."
WEB: saying that the Son of Man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again?"
Young’s: saying -- It behoveth
the Son of Man to be delivered up to the hands of sinful men, and to be
crucified, and the third day to rise again.'
Conte (RC): saying: 'For the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.' "
24:7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men. Unless reference is here made to the Gentiles (xviii. 32), it is probable that the angel added this epithet sinful as his own expression of the character of all who had any agency in the crucifixion of Jesus. (See Acts ii. 23.) 
and be crucified, and the third day rise again. The Lord’s murder was a certainty; His triumph over it an equal certainty. [rw]
Weymouth: Then they remembered His words,
WEB: They remembered his words,
Young’s: And they remembered his sayings,
Conte (RC): And they called to mind his words.
24:8 And they remembered His words. They had heard His words but had clearly not understood Him in any sense envolving a literal death and raising from the dead. Perhaps His talk of such things had been interpreted by them like the parables—a earthly story with a spiritual meaning but the spiritual meaning not being what was directly and literally under consideration. At this point the startling reality is starting to penetrate their heads. They had gone to the tomb expecting a dead body to prepare for its final resting place; this was the last thing they had imagined. In fact it is clear that it was not even on their list of possibilities. A dead body—yes. A stolen body—perhaps, outrage though it would be. But a dead body that was no longer dead? This was an option they were simply not prepared for. [rw]
Weymouth: and returning from the tomb they reported all this to the Eleven and to all the rest.
WEB: returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest.
Young’s: and having turned back from the tomb told
all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest.
Conte (RC): And returning from the tomb, they reported all these things to the eleven, and to all the others.
24:9 And returned from the sepulchre. It is reasonably supposed that they may have done this by different routes, and that the various experiences of two (or more) parties of them may have occasioned differences in the several narratives. 
and told all these things. Obediently to the express command of the angel, which Matthew and Mark state. 
They left out nothing. Whatever the full implications of all this were—and could they have barely begun to think them through?—the news had to be shared with the others. Angelic command required it, but could they possibly have restrained themselves if they had wanted to? On the other hand, perhaps that was the reason for the command: that they would fear it was all—somehow, unimaginably—an illusion? [rw]
unto the eleven. This is now the designation of the remaining body of the disciples, and might be employed where the number was not complete. 
Compare Matthew 28:8. From John 20:2 we infer that Mary of Magdala had, in the first instance, run from the sepulcher to tell Peter and John of the removal of the stone, and had therefore not seen the first vision of angels. The apparent contradiction in Mark 16:8 obviously means that they “said not one word on the subject to any one” except the Apostles to whom they were expressly told to announce it (Matthew 28:7). 
and to all the rest. Other adherents of Jesus, of whom we afterward find one hundred and twenty assembled, had begun to associate again with the apostles. 
Quite likely having the sense of “all the rest” who were with the apostles when they got the report. It would have been impossible for the apostles to receive the report without any one else present hearing the report as they received it. [rw]
Weymouth: The women were Mary of Magdala, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James; and they and the rest of the women related all this to the Apostles.
WEB: Now they were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James. The other women with them told these things to the apostles.
Young’s: And it was the Magdalene Mary, and
Joanna, and Mary of James, and the other women with them, who told unto the
apostles these things,
Conte (RC): Now it was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary of James, and the other women who were with them, who told these things to the Apostles.
24:10 It was Mary Magdalene. All the Evangelists mention Mary Magdalene as the one who was first at the tomb, and the first two include other two Marys; all these stating this fact at the beginning. Luke writes as if it had now occurred to him that he had omitted this statement, and needed to supply the lack. He also adds, what the other Gospels presuppose, that there were others with the Marys. 
and Joanna. The wife of Chusa, steward or chamberlain to Herod Antipas (8:3). Some have supposed that Chusa was that nobleman of Capernaum whose son Jesus cured (John 3:46-54). 
and Mary, the mother of James. She was the "Mary of Clopas" of John 19:25; Matthew 27:56. Her son was called "James the Less" (Mark 15:40), to distinguish him from the son of Zebedee and Salome. 
and other women that were with them. The author’s way of saying that the testimony was based on more than one or two, or even three, separate witnesses. On the one hand it was easy to dismiss it as “silly women’s talk” but even in a society that might be inclined to dismiss it on that grounds, when this many women start saying something like this, you’d expect at least someone among the leadership of the group to at least look into it, if only to be able to firmly dismiss it. Peter is the one who does so (verse 11). [rw]
which told these things unto the apostles. These were the ones closest to Jesus and de facto leaders in His absence. Whatever their virtues or faults, they had de facto responsibility to investigate. [rw]
Weymouth: But the whole story seemed to them an idle tale; they could not believe the women.
WEB: These words seemed to them to be nonsense, and they didn't believe them.
Young’s: and their sayings appeared before them as
idle talk, and they were not believing them.
Conte (RC): But these words seemed to them a delusion. And so they did not believe them.
24:11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales. Literally, silly talk; nonsense. Only here in New Testament. Used in medical language of the wild talk of delirium. 
and they believed them not. The apostles clearly had no “will to believe.” They had to be tangibly convinced of Jesus’ resurrection before embracing it. [rw]
Weymouth: Peter, however, rose and ran to the tomb. Stooping and looking in, he saw nothing but the linen cloths: so he went away to his own home, wondering at what had happened.
WEB: But Peter got up and ran to the tomb. Stooping and looking in, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he departed to his home, wondering what had happened.
Young’s: And Peter having risen,
did run to the tomb, and having stooped down he seeth
the linen clothes lying alone, and he went away to his own home, wondering at
that which was come to pass.
Conte (RC): But Peter, rising up, ran to the tomb. And stooping down, he saw the linen cloths positioned alone, and he went away wondering to himself about what had happened.
24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre. This movement seems likely to have been the same as that recorded in John (20:3-10); and if it was, it had taken place earlier in the day, when Mary Magdalene first reported that the Lord was gone from the tomb. 
The presence of John, though omitted here, is implied in verse 24. 
and stooping down. [This] may indicate that the entrance to the tomb was of slight elevation in the hill-side, or that it ran sloping into a subterranean chamber. 
he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves. Literally, alone; i.e., apart from any corpse. This was evidence that the body had not been snatched away, but that care had been taken in leaving the place. This idea is, however, much more fully expressed in the parallel passage of John, who gives the account which had possibly served as a source of this statement in Luke. 
and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass. As a reference to the apostle’s state of mind: The surprise, the perplexed incredulity of the Disciples, admitted by all the Evangelists alike, add force to those evidences which so absolutely convinced them of the miracle which they had never contemplated. The stunning blow of the Crucifixion had made them forget the prophecies of Jesus, which even at the time they had been unable to receive with any comprehension or conviction. 
As a reference to the apostle’s destination: “In himself’ is more probably to be referred to the verb “departed,” signifying, departed to himself; i.e., to his own house = went home. We seem rather to need information whither he went, than as to the sphere of his wonder. The expression “to himself,” in this sense, suggests at once the French chez soi, “to his home;” and Kypke, on the passage, gives many examples of a similar use of the Greek phrase. Peter was yet in that state of wonder which involves study and leads to knowledge. Tischendorf omits this verse; Tregelles brackets it; Westcott and Hort enclose it in doubt brackets; but the Revision rightly retains it as probably authentic. 
Weymouth: On that same day two of the disciples were walking to Emmaus, a village seven or eight miles from Jerusalem,
WEB: Behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus, which was sixty stadia from Jerusalem.
Young’s: And, lo, two of them were going on during
that day to a village, distant sixty furlongs from Jerusalem, the name of which
Conte (RC): And behold, two of them went out, on the same day, to a town named Emmaus, which was the distance of sixty stadia from Jerusalem.
24:13 And, behold, two of them. Two of the disciples. The name of one of them was Cleopas (verse 18). 
It is expressly implied in verse 33 that they were not Apostles. One was Cleopas (an abbreviation of Cleopatros), of whom we know nothing, for the name is not the same as Clopas ( = Alphaeus or Chalpai, John 19:25), though they may have been the same person (see 6:15).The other is unknown, and unconjecturable. There is no shadow of probability that it was Luke himself (Theophylact). This narrative is given by Luke alone, though mentioned in Mark 16:12, 13. 
went that same day. Establishing the time frame for the events. [rw]
to a village called Emmaus. There were two places of this name, one of which was afterwards called Nicopolis, and was situated to the west of Jerusalem. It is wholly unknown why they were going to Emmaus. It may have been that this was their native place or that they had friends in the vicinity. 
which was from Jerusalem about three score furlongs. Sixty furlongs or about seven or eight miles. 
Weymouth: and were conversing about all these recent events;
WEB: They talked with each other about all of these things which had happened.
Young’s: and they were conversing with one another
about all these things that have happened.
Conte (RC): And they spoke to one another about all of these things that had occurred.
24:14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened. What more natural behavior for disciples of Jesus? They honored and revered Him and His judicial murder snatched Him from the land of living. They wished to make sense of what had happened: “what does it mean?” Are our hopes permanently shattered? Shall we revere the departed Jesus as followers of the ancient prophets surely revered the memory of those they had know? Would the movement Jesus had created persevere? Was there reason to? And, perhaps, most importantly: How in the world could God have let this happen! [rw]
Weymouth: and, in the midst of their conversation and discussion, Jesus Himself came and joined them,
WEB: It happened, while they talked and questioned together, that Jesus himself came near, and went with them.
Young’s: And it came to pass in their conversing
and reasoning together, that Jesus himself, having come nigh, was going on with
Conte (RC): And it happened that, while they were speculating and questioning within themselves, Jesus himself, drawing near, traveled with them.
24:15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned. Exchanged views and feelings, weighing afresh all the facts. 
Jesus Himself drew near and went with them. The disciples were properly employed. Their minds were anxious about the state of things and they endeavored to arrive at the truth. In this state of things Jesus came to solve their doubts. 
Weymouth: though they were prevented from recognizing Him
WEB: But their eyes were kept from recognizing him.
Young’s: and their eyes were holden
so as not to know him,
Conte (RC): But their eyes were restrained, so that they would not recognize him.
24:16 But their eyes were holden [restrained, NKJV] that they should not know him. Partly He was "in another form" (Mark 16:12) and partly there seems to have been an operation on their own vision; though certainly, as they did not believe that He was alive, His company as a fellow-traveler was the last thing they would expect. 
There are two other instances of the same remarkable fact. Mary of Magdala did not recognize Him (John 20:14), nor did the disciples on the Lake (John 21:4). The same thing is evidently implied in verse 37 and in Matthew 28:17; and it exactly accords with the clear indications that the Resurrection Body of our Lord was a Glorified Body of which the conditions transcended those of ordinary mortality. It is emphasized in Mark 16:12, where we are told that He was manifested in a different form from that which He had worn before. 
Weymouth: "What is the subject," He asked them, "on which you are talking so earnestly, as you walk?" And they stood still, looking full of sorrow.
WEB: He said to them, "What are you talking about as you walk, and are sad?"
Young’s: and he said unto them, 'What are these
words that ye exchange with one another, walking, and ye are sad?'
Conte (RC): And he said to them, "What are these words, which you are discussing with one another, as you walk and are sad?"
24:17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications [conversation, NKJV] are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk. The words imply that Jesus had avoided saying anything at all but acted as a passive listener. Sometimes one learns much more about what is going on—and what their true sentiments are—by just listening rather than personally getting envolved in the conversation! [rw]
and are sad. The word describes the expression of their countenances, sad-faced. 
The true reading seems to be “and they stood still, looking sad.” They stopped short, displeased at the unwelcome, and possibly perilous, intrusion of a stranger into their conversation. 
Weymouth: Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered, "Are you a stranger lodging alone in Jerusalem, that you have known nothing of the things that have lately happened in the city?"
WEB: One of them, named Cleopas, answered him, "Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who doesn't know the things which have happened there in these days?"
Young’s: And the one, whose name was Cleopas, answering, said unto him, 'Art thou alone such a
stranger in Jerusalem, that thou hast not known the things that came to pass in
it in these days?'
Conte (RC): And one of them, whose name was Cleopas, responded by saying to him, "Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?"
24:18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas. The mention of the name would guide some of the first readers of the gospel to a definite person; to us, it is only a name. 
answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? The sense is, “Art thou the only one sojourning in Jerusalem without becoming aware of these all-important events”? The men are themselves so full of the fate of Jesus that they see not how even a stranger, as they judge Him to be, there only for the feast, can fail to be thinking of the same subject as themselves. If He is not, He must be the only such man. 
Weymouth: "What things?" He asked. "The things about Jesus the Nazarene," they said, "who was a Prophet powerful in work and word before God and all the people;
WEB: He said to them, "What things?" They said to him, "The things concerning Jesus, the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people;
Young’s: And he said to them, 'What things?' And
they said to him, 'The things about Jesus of Nazareth, who became a man -- a
prophet -- powerful in deed and word, before God and all the people,
Conte (RC): And he said to them, "What things?" And they said, "About Jesus of Nazareth, who was a noble prophet, powerful in works and in words, before God and all the people.
24:19 And He said unto them, What things? He who asks a question does not affirm that He does not know the answer. Our Lord here, as well as at a later part of His history, draws out from the disciples their opinions, feelings and wishes. 
And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet. A teacher sent from God. They did not now call Him the "Messiah" for His death had led them to doubt that. But they had no doubt that He was a distinguished prophet. The evidence of that was so clear that they could not call it in question. 
Still only a prophet. The further thought that Jesus was the Christ has been quite shattered and abandoned, as verse 21 shows. 
mighty in deed. Powerful in working miracles, in raising the dead, healing the sick, etc. 
and word. In teaching. 
See a remarkable parallel to this description in Acts 2:22. 
before God and all the people. Manifestly, publicly. So that God owned Him, and the people regarded Him as a distinguished teacher. 
Weymouth: and how our High Priests and Rulers delivered Him up to be sentenced to death, and crucified Him.
WEB: and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him.
Young’s: how also the chief priests and our rulers
did deliver him up to a judgment of death, and crucified him;
Conte (RC): And how our high priests and leaders handed him over to be condemned to death. And they crucified him.
24:20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified Him. They were under no delusion as to who was actually responsible for the judicial murder. Pilate may have given a veneer of legality to it, but it was their own Jewish “chief priests and our rulers” who were behind the whole affair. This argues that the perception of what had really happened was widespread in the city. Although there were many of the leading classes who had no interest in Jesus or even some degree of annoyance, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that they would have chalked this up to yet another abuse of power by those who happily road over so many others as well. In short they wouldn’t be heart-broken at the death of the Galilean, but they would have no reason to give the abuse of justice anything but their silent contempt as well. [rw]
Weymouth: But we were hoping that it was He who was about to ransom Israel. Yes, and moreover it was the day before yesterday that these things happened.
WEB: But we were hoping that it was he who would redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened.
Young’s: and we were hoping that he it is who is
about to redeem Israel, and also with all these things, this third day is
passing to-day, since these things happened.
Conte (RC): But we were hoping that he would be the Redeemer of Israel. And now, on top of all this, today is the third day since these things have happened.
24:21 But we trusted. We hoped and expected. 
He and none other. 
that it had been He which should have redeemed Israel. That He was the Messiah, who would have delivered the nation from the Romans. 
and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done. It is evident that the Apostles supposed that Jesus had lain in the tomb exactly the time which He prophesied beforehand that He would. These disciples reason that the third day is passing, and Jesus did not appear. It was therefore on that day that He would rise, according to their mode of computation. 
Or: But this may, quite probably, have been brought to them by the women’s report of what the angels had said on that subject. They relate the mission of the women to the tomb that morning, and, probably, that of Peter (verse 12); whether of John also (John 20:3)? 
Weymouth: And, besides, some of the women of our company have amazed us. They went to the tomb at daybreak,
WEB: Also, certain women of our company amazed us, having arrived early at the tomb;
Young’s: 'And certain women of ours also
astonished us, coming early to the tomb,
Conte (RC): Then, too, certain women from among us terrified us. For before daytime, they were at the tomb,
24:22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre. Clearly they hadn’t seen the Risen One yet, but they had heard strange tales of an empty tomb. The clerical leaders were too happy to have Him dead to wish to walk away with the body—their contempt was so intense that, if they could have gotten away with it and kept their dignity, they would probably like to have left it on public display for a week . . . as the ultimate warning to their enemies.. And the disciples certainly had nothing to do with it—they were still in shock over the crucifixion. So: What in the world happened to the body? The women’s words “astonished” everyone. Might His words about “resurrection” have come literally true? The might be driven to that conclusion eventually, but, as the next verse shows, they were still striving for an explanation short of that one. [rw]
Weymouth: and, finding that His body was not there, they came and declared to us that they had also seen a vision of angels who said that He was alive.
WEB: and when they didn't find his body, they came saying that they had also seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive.
Young’s: and not having found his body, they came,
saying also to have seen an apparition of messengers, who say he is alive,
Conte (RC): and, having not found his body, they returned, saying that they had even seen a vision of Angels, who said that he is alive.
24:23 And when they found not His body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that He was alive. A “vision” would be astonishing in its own right but they explicitly apply the term only to the “angels” that were seen. The next step, in regard to Jesus, would be to call any sightings of Him to be “visions” as well. But they do not mention any. Yet their language here surely reveals a predisposition to such an explanation of stories of a risen Jesus that should come to their ears. In short, they weren’t expecting a bodily / physical resurrection. Their accepting such a conclusion would only come from proof positive and represent a reversal of what they assumed such an appearance would “have to be.” [rw]
Weymouth: Thereupon some of our party went to the tomb and found things just as the women had said; but Jesus Himself they did not see."
WEB: Some of us went to the tomb, and found it just like the women had said, but they didn't see him."
Young’s: and certain of those with us went away
unto the tomb, and found as even the women said, and him they saw not.'
Conte (RC): And some of us went out to the tomb. And they found it just as the women had said. But truly, they did not find him."
24:24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre. There had two or more gone to the tomb, within the knowledge of these men, and so within that of Luke. As he had not related the event, it shows that he was not aiming to tell all he knew. 
and found it even so as the women had said: but Him they saw not. [They confirmed their report of] the absence of the body, and perhaps, to the presence of the angels. The result of it all was, that they find themselves intellectually perplexed; while their sentiment of attachment to the Great Teacher is affectionate and strong. 
This phrase most naturally expressed their incredulity and sorrow. It also shows how impossible is the skeptical theory that the Disciples were misled by hallucinations. Against any blind enthusiasms we see that the Apostles and Disciples were most suspiciously on their guard. They accepted nothing short of most rigid proof. 
Weymouth: "O dull-witted men," He replied, "with minds so slow to believe all that the Prophets have spoken!
WEB: He said to them, "Foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
Young’s: And he said unto them, 'O inconsiderate
and slow in heart, to believe on all that the prophets spake!
Conte (RC): And he said to them: "How foolish and reluctant in heart you are, to believe everything that has been spoken by the Prophets!
24:25 Then He said unto them, O fools. The expression is much too strong. It is not the word aphrones (see 11:40), but anoetoi, “foolish,” “unintelligent.” (Galatians 3:1). 
The word "fool" sometimes is a term of reproach denoting wickedness. In this sense we are forbidden to employ it in addressing another (Matthew 5:22). That, however, is a different word in the Greek from this one here. The one there used implies contempt, but that in this place denotes weakness or dullness. It was an expression denoting merely that they were thoughtless, and that they did not properly attend to the evidence that He must die and rise again. 
and slow of heart to believe. Not quick to perceive. Dull of learning. They had suffered their previous opinions and prejudices to prevent their seeing the evidence that He must die and rise from the dead. 
all that the prophets have spoken. Respecting the character and sufferings of the Messiah. 
A strong emphasis lies on the word “all.” They had overlooked the prophecies of suffering and death  [i.e., there were multiple prophecies pointing in the same direction and they had not merely overlooked a single prophecy but several that pointed in the same direction [rw] ]
Weymouth: Was there not a necessity for the Christ thus to suffer, and then enter into His glory?"
WEB: Didn't the Christ have to suffer these things and to enter into his glory?"
Young’s: Was it not behoving
the Christ these things to suffer, and to enter into his glory?'
Conte (RC): Was not the Christ required to suffer these things, and so enter into his glory?
24:26 Ought not. Was there not evidence that He would do it; and was it not indispensable that He should, in order to fulfill the prophecies? The necessity of His suffering these things referred to here was that it was foretold that He would. 
Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into his glory? The Jews could not reconcile the idea of a suffering Messiah with that of a glorious one. So they came at length to invent the theory of two Messiahs, one of whom should suffer and be slain and the other should reign and deliver Israel. We understand these opposite features as they are fulfilled in Christ. The suffering is even the condition of the glorification. 
and to enter into His glory? Was not this also a part of that purpose, which could be accomplished only through the Messiah’s death? “Thus St. Luke mainly dwells on the resurrection as a spiritual necessity; St. Mark as a great fact; St. Matthew as a glorious and majestic manifestation; and St. John in its effects on the minds of the members of the church.” Farrar, epitomizing Westcott. 
Weymouth: And, beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them the passages in Scripture which refer to Himself.
WEB: Beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he explained to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
Young’s: and having begun from Moses, and from all
the prophets, he was expounding to them in all the Writings the things about
Conte (RC): And beginning from Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted for them, in all the Scriptures, the things that were about him.
24:27 And beginning at Moses. At the writings of Moses, or at the beginning of the Old Testament. 
and all the prophets. Either a reference to the Old Testament books in general upon the assumption that they were all written by de facto or de jure prophets or a reference to the directly prophetic literature in particular. Although the historical works written by them might automatically be assumed to have relevant material—though one might have to look carefully—it was in the directly “prophetic literature” where one would naturally expect the most direct and precise references to the Messianic figure to come. [rw]
He expounded unto them. He explained or interpreted it to them. Probably He showed them that their notions of the Messiah were not according to the Scriptures. They expected a temporal prince; they were confounded because Jesus had not assumed the regal power, but had been put to death. He showed them that according to the prophecies He ought to suffer and that His death, therefore, was no argument that He was not the Messiah. 
in all the Scriptures. In all the writings of the Old Testament. 
Assuming a short discussion : Of course it was only a selection out of all the Scriptures, that the time would allow Him to expound. Besides Moses = the law, and the prophets, there was that third section, as the Jews classified, the Hagiographa, or “holy writings,” including particularly the Psalms and other poetical books. (See verse 44). If Luke could have imparted to us the instruction communicated in that discourse, developing the true sense of the prophecies, from the opening Gospel of Genesis 3:15, to the Sun of Righteousness, Malachi 4:2, what volumes of groping discussing in later ages might we well have spared!
Assuming that a far more detailed presentation was made : The Scriptures which the Lord probably referred to specially were the promise to Eve (Genesis 3:15); the promise to Abraham (Genesis 22:18); the Paschal lamb (Exodus 12:1-51.); the scapegoat (Leveticus 16:1-34); the brazen serpent (Numbers 21:9); the greater Prophet (Deuteronomy 18:15); the star and sceptre (Numbers 24:17); the smitten rock (Numbers 20:11; 1 Corinthians 10:4), etc.; Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14); "Unto us a Child is born," etc. (Isaiah 9:6, 7); the good Shepherd (Isaiah 40:10, 11); the meek Sufferer (Isaiah 50:6); he who bore our griefs (Isaiah 53:4, 5); the Branch (Jeremiah 23:1-45; Jeremiah 33:14, 15); the Heir of David (Ezekiel 34:23); the Ruler from Bethlehem (Micah 5:2); the Branch (Zechariah 6:12); the lowly King (Zechariah 9:9); the pierced Victim (Zechariah 12:10); the smitten Shepherd (Zechariah 13:7); the messenger of the covenant (Malachi 3:1); the Sun of Righteousness (Malachi 4:2); and no doubt many other passages.
Dr. Davison, in his book on prophecy, shows that there is not one of the prophets without some distinct reference to Christ, except Nahum, Jonah (who was himself a type and prophetic sign), and Habakkuk, who, however, uses the memorable words quoted in Romans 1:17. To these we must add references to several of the psalms, notably to the sixteenth and twenty-second, where sufferings and death are spoken of as belonging to the perfect picture of the Servant of the Lord and the ideal King. His hearers would know well how strangely the agony of Calvary was foreshadowed in those vivid word-pictures he called before their memories in the course of that six-mile walk from Jerusalem to Emmaus.
the things concerning Himself. Concerning the Messiah. It does not appear that He applied them to Himself, but left them probably to make the application. He showed what the Scriptures foretold; and they saw that these things applied to Jesus of Nazareth. 
Weymouth: When they had come near the village to which they were going, He appeared to be going further.
WEB: They drew near to the village, where they were going, and he acted like he would go further.
Young’s: And they came nigh to the village whither
they were going, and he made an appearance of going on further,
Conte (RC): And they drew near to the town were they were going. And he conducted himself so as to go on further.
24:28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and He made as though He would have gone further. He did not say He would go no further, but He kept on as if it was not His intention to stop; and doubtless He would have gone on, if they had not constrained Him to tarry. 
He had, no doubt, provoked their thinking through His references to various prophecies. He had said enough to get them thinking about the matter. Now it was up to them to decide whether they wished Him to stay in the hope the discussion might continue or lead on to other thought provoking matters. Christ will not force His continued presence on anyone. [rw]
Weymouth: But they pressed Him to remain with them. "Because," said they, "it is getting towards evening, and the day is nearly over." So He went in to stay with them.
WEB: They urged him, saying, "Stay with us, for it is almost evening, and the day is almost over." He went in to stay with them.
Young’s: and they constrained him, saying, 'Remain
with us, for it is toward evening,' and the day did decline, and he went in to
remain with them.
Conte (RC): But they were insistent with him, saying, "Remain with us, because it is toward evening and now daylight is declining." And so he entered with them.
24:29 But they constrained him. Touched His shoulder. Grabbed His arm, perhaps. Whatever would temporarily stop His going further until He considered their words. [rw]
saying, Abide with us. They besought Him, from love, for His own sake and from hospitality, not to venture on a journey by night. 
Historical note: It is this beautiful verse which has furnished the idea of Lyte’s dying hymn, “Abide with me, fast falls the eventide.” 
for it is toward evening and the day is far spent. And consequently both inconvenient and unsafe to proceed to another village. 
His conversation may have whiled away some hours, between walking and rest. They would have had Him spend the night with them. 
And He went in to tarry with them. It was apparently their own house, or that of one of them. [For an alternative possibility see the next verse – rw] He simply granted their prayer; the word “abide” in this sentence, being from the same Greek as that in the preceding sentence. It is applicable to a longer or shorter stay. 
Weymouth: But as soon as He had sat down with them, and had taken the bread and had blessed and broken it, and was handing it to them,
WEB: It happened, that when he had sat down at the table with them, he took the bread and gave thanks. Breaking it, he gave to them.
Young’s: And it came to pass, in his reclining (at
meat) with them, having taken the bread, he blessed, and having broken, he was
giving to them,
Conte (RC): And it happened that, while he was at table with them, he took bread, and he blessed and broke it, and he extended it to them.
24:30 And it came to pass, as He sat at meat with them. Some have supposed that one at least of the two had a dwelling at Emmaus; but the position which the strange Teacher assumed as "Master of the household," in the solemn act recorded in Luke 24:30, seems to indicate that it was an inn where they sojourned. 
He took bread, and blessed it. “Offered praise” would be a better rendering than “blessed it.” 
The Saviour’s assumption of the headship of the table must have seemed strange to the two disciples, even if, as some suppose, they were tarrying at an inn; still more so, if it was at their own house. An old Jewish rule, reported in later books, makes it obligatory to say grace where there are three at the table. 
and brake, and gave to them. But ate not Himself. 
In depth: Popularity of effort to make this a reference to the Communion : The great teachers of the Church in different ages have generally so understood it. So Chrysostom in the Eastern, and Augustine in the Western Church; so Theophylact, and later Beza the Reformer all affirm that this meal was the sacrament. It taught men generally, even more plainly than did the first sacred institution teach the twelve, that in this solemn breaking of bread the Church would recognize their Master's presence. So generally, in fact, has this Emmaus "breaking of bread" been recognized by the Catholic Church as the sacrament, that later Romanist divines have even pressed it as a scriptural demonstration for the abuse which administered the elements under one form.
On the other hand, however : Had these disciples been of the eleven, we might naturally think the meal intended as the repetition of the Supper three nights before. Still we should feel that there was much lacking to the proper description of such a meal. And as these two disciples had not been present at the institution of the Lord’s Supper, they could not be reminded of that. It was rather in the way of His usual custom of praising God for His goodness, at the beginning of a meal, that the Saviour now proceeded. This disposes at once of various dogmatic inferences of Roman Catholics and others.
Weymouth: their eyes were opened and they recognized Him. But He vanished from them.
WEB: Their eyes were opened, and they recognized him, and he vanished out of their sight.
Young’s: and their eyes were opened, and they
recognized him, and he became unseen by them.
Conte (RC): And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their eyes.
24:31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew Him. “Knew” =
recognized Him. Here was a Divine act
performed upon them, at the moment of His distributing the bread, which did
away with the restraining influence spoken of (verse 16); their eyes were no
longer “holden,” and in the peculiar spirit and
manner of His opening their meal, they perceived that it was He.
Or: Utterly shallow and rationalistic is the interpretation of Alford making these disciples discover Jesus by His mode of breaking bread! If neither voice, nor form, nor person, revealed the Lord, how absurd to suppose that His manner of breaking bread should accomplish the discovery. These two were not apostles, nor is it probable that they were specially familiar with His style of breaking bread. 
and He vanished out of their sight. As suddenly and mysteriously as He had drawn near (verse 15), He now disappeared. He did not go—but was gone. Already we discern that air of mystery, materiality spiritualized, which hangs around the whole manifestation of our Lord, during the forty days of His resurrection life. To some He was visible at certain times, but not at all times. And to others not at any time. Now His organic frame appears in the solidity of a human body, and subject to ordinary human conditions; and again, it moves as unrestrictedly as if it were a bodiless soul. 
Or: It does not appear that there was anything miraculous in this; but, during their surprise, He took the opportunity suddenly to withdraw from them. 
Weymouth: "Were not our hearts," they said to one another, "burning within us while He talked to us on the way and explained the Scriptures to us?"
WEB: They said one to another, "Weren't our hearts burning within us, while he spoke to us along the way, and while he opened the Scriptures to us?"
Young’s: And they said one to another,
'Was not our heart burning within us, as he was speaking to us in the way, and
as he was opening up to us the Writings?'
Conte (RC): And they said to one another, "Was not our heart burning within us, while he was speaking on the way, and when he opened the Scriptures to us?"
24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our hearts burn within us. An expression denoting the deep interest and pleasure they felt in His discourse before they knew who He was. 
The heart “burning” within them denotes that indescribable fervor of religious interest awakened in their hearts by the clear apprehension of truth concerning God, and His plan of redemption through Christ. 
while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? He explained to us the Scriptures. See verse 27. 
“Opening” the Scriptures to one is, plainly, causing one rightly to appreciate the truth there written, in its appropriateness to the seeking soul. 
“Never man spake like this man,” John 7:46. [ ? ]
Weymouth: So they rose and without an hour's delay returned to Jerusalem, and found the Eleven and the rest met together, who said to them,
WEB: They rose up that very hour, returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and those who were with them,
Young’s: And they, having risen up the same hour,
turned back to Jerusalem, and found gathered together the eleven, and those
Conte (RC): And rising up at that same hour, they returned to Jerusalem. And they found the eleven gathered together, and those who were with them,
24:33 And they rose up the same hour. Their fatigue is gone and the darkness with which they detained their guest detains not them. 
“They fear no longer the night-journey from which they had dissuaded their unknown Companion” (Bengel). 
and returned to Jerusalem. A night walk over a rough uneven road. 
With haste, we may suppose that less than two hours would suffice. 
and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them. The eleven apostles. Judas was now dead. This shows that the two that went to Emmaus were not apostles. 
Weymouth: "Yes, it is true: the Master has come back to life. He has been seen by Simon."
WEB: saying, "The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!"
Young’s: saying -- 'The Lord was raised indeed,
and was seen by Simon;'
Conte (RC): saying: "In truth, the Lord has risen, and he has appeared to Simon."
24:34 Saying. The eleven said this (verse 33). 
The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. Of this appearance to Peter we have no narrative. But that the fact was known to the apostolic church is evident from 1 Corinthians 15:5-7. 
The fact that Luke has not mentioned that in his narrative, shows that he selects his facts out of an ample store. 
In depth: Another reconstruction of the order of the appearances of the resurrected Jesus : The recorded appearances of our Lord (for there seem to have been many unrecorded, Acts 1:3), are as follows:
(1) To Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-18; Mark 16:9-11).
(2) To the other women who went to the sepulchre (Matthew 28:9.
(3) To Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5).
(4) To the two on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35; Mark 16:12).
(5) To the "Eleven" in the evening, Thomas being absent (John 20:19-24).
(6) To the "Eleven," Thomas being present, one week later (John 20:25- 29; Mark 16:14-18).
(7) To seven apostles by the Sea of Galilee (John 21:1-24).
(8) To 500 disciples on a hill in Galilee (Matthew 18:16-20; 1 Corinthians 15:6).
(9) To James (1 Corinthians 15:7).
(10) To the apostles at Jerusalem (Acts 1:3-5; 1 Corinthians 15:7).
(11) Near Bethany at the Ascension (Acts 1:6-11; Mark 16:19; Luke
Weymouth: Then they related what had happened on the way, and how He had been recognized by them in the breaking of the bread.
WEB: They related the things that happened along the way, and how he was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread.
Young’s: and they were telling the things in the
way, and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread,
Conte (RC): And they explained the things that were done on the way, and how they had recognized him at the breaking of the bread.
24:35 And they. Namely, Cleopas and his companion. “They” is emphatic; “they, on their part.” 
told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread. The disbelief ascribed to the eleven, in Mark 16:13, 14, had reference to this particular appearance, and might rest on the supposedly improbability that Christ should be in widely separated places at or near the same time. 
Weymouth: While they were thus talking, He Himself stood in their midst and said, "Peace be to you!"
WEB: As they said these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, "Peace be to you."
Young’s: and as they are speaking these things,
Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith
to them, 'Peace -- to you;'
Conte (RC): Then, while they were talking about these things, Jesus stood in their midst, And he said to them: "Peace be with you. It is I. Do not be afraid."
24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them. This was when the apostles were assembled and when they had closed the doors for fear of the Jews (John 20:19). It was this fact, as well as His sudden and unexpected appearance that alarmed them. The doors were shut; and the suddenness of His appearance led them to suppose they had seen a spirit. 
and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. This was a form of salutation among the Hebrews, denoting a wish of peace and prosperity. See Genesis 40:23. It was peculiarly appropriate for Jesus, as He had said before His death that He left His peace with them as their inheritance (John 14:27) and as they were now alarmed, and fearful at their state, and trembling for fear of the Jews (John 20:19). 
This was the ordinary Jewish greeting, but on this occasion, spoken by the Lord, possessed more than the ordinary meaning. This "peace" was his solemn, comforting greeting to his own, just as "his peace" which he left with them on the sad Thursday eve was his solemn farewell to the eleven, spoken, perhaps, in the same "upper room" just before he went out to the garden of the agony. 
In depth: An overview of this appearance as found here and in the gospel of John . This is one of the most remarkable appearances of the Risen Christ. His intercourse [= dealings] with them on this occasion consisted of a greeting (36); a reproach and consolation (38; Mark 16:14); a demonstration of the reality of His person (39-43; John 20:20); an opening of their understandings (44-46); an appointment of the Apostles to the ministries of remission and witness (47, 48; John 19:21, 23); a promise of the Spirit, for the fulfillment of which they were to wait in Jerusalem (49). At the close of this great scene He once more pronounced the benediction of Peace, and breathed on them with the words “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22). It is doubtless the extreme fullness with which Luke has narrated this appearance which led him in accordance with his economy of method to omit some of the other appearances.
Weymouth: Startled, and in the utmost alarm, they thought they were looking at a spirit;
WEB: But they were terrified and filled with fear, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
Young’s: and being amazed, and becoming
affrighted, they were thinking themselves to see a spirit.
Conte (RC): Yet truly, they were very disturbed and terrified, supposing that they saw a spirit.
24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted. Would any of us have been any different—except in our prideful fantasies? [rw]
The perturbation of mind is mentioned as a reason for their mistake; literally, “becoming terrified and affrighted, they supposed,” etc. 
and supposed that they had seen a spirit. How else could they explain his presence in their midst, when the doors were shut? The evangelists make no attempt to explain his sudden appearance. He was simply there as they spoke of him. It is clear that his presence could be accounted for in no ordinary, natural way. His disciples felt that; hence their supposition that they were looking on a spirit. We can, with our present limited knowledge, form no adequate conception of this resurrection-body of the Lord. It was a reality, no phantasm or appearance; of that the scene about to be described gives us ample evidence. Still, it is clear that his resurrection-body was not bound by the present conditions of material existence of which we are conscious: He could come into a closed, barred room. He could be visible or invisible, known or unknown, as He pleased and when He pleased. 
The same popular delusion, that the disembodied spirits appear in the semblance of a body, led the apostles once before to imagine that Christ, walking on the water in the night, was a ghost (Matthew 14:26; Mark 6:49). The word they used then was “phantasm,” or “spectre,” but meaning, as here, “a ghost.” Luke makes no mention of reproach to them (compare Mark 16:14), which was even more called for here, when they not only disbelieved the testimony of those who had seen Him risen, but that of their own eyes; but He shows us the forbearance of the Lord in reasoning with them, and giving them demonstrative proof. 
Weymouth: but He said to them, "Why such alarm? And why are there such questionings in your minds?
WEB: He said to them, "Why are you troubled? Why do doubts arise in your hearts?
Young’s: And he said to them, 'Why are ye
troubled? and wherefore do reasonings
come up in your hearts?
Conte (RC): And he said to them: "Why are you disturbed, and why do these thoughts rise up in your hearts?
24:38 And He said unto them, Why are you troubled? Why are you alarmed or frightened? 
and why do thoughts [doubts, NKJV] arise in your hearts? The first question challenged their anxiety: Why should the sight of Me—of all people!—bring fear into your heart? The second thought, in the second half of the verse: Why do you doubt what you see? Others had seen Him. Some of them had seen Him. Surely, by now, some of them should be linking up these appearances to His promises of His “resurrection” . . . with what their own people had already been reporting! [rw]
Weymouth: See my hands and my feet--it is my very self. Feel me and see, for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see I have."
WEB: See my hands and my feet, that it is truly me. Touch me and see, for a spirit doesn't have flesh and bones, as you see that I have."
Young’s: see my hands and my feet, that I am he;
handle me and see, because a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me
Conte (RC): See my hands and feet, that it is I myself. Look and touch. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have."
24:39 Behold my hands and My feet, that it is I myself: handle Me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have. The three tests and proofs that He gives them that this is the same, tangible Jesus they had followed during His earthly ministry : He gave them three “infallible proofs” that it was indeed He, the Jesus whom they had known, in His proper person, and no spectre; first, by causing them to see His scarred hands and feet (verses 39, 40), from which we learn that the feet of Jesus had been nailed to the cross; secondly, by letting them feel Him that He was not a mere semblance of Jesus, but Himself bodily. In regard to this, as bearing on the relation of His person to the glorified, spiritual body (compare 1 Corinthians 15:50), we can only speculate, and that to little use. Thirdly, He “did eat before them a piece of a broiled fish,” which they gave Him. Nothing further could be needed to scatter all their doubts. 
In depth: What was the nature of Jesus' resurrection body ? In regard to the nature of our Lord's risen body previous to the Ascension, we may say that there are four different opinions prevalent. The first supposes a body in substance entirely new substituted for the previous body; the second, a body the same in substance and attributes; just as Lazarus's natural unchanged body was raised the same as before death; the third, a body the same in substance but endowed with new properties and powers; the fourth, the same body glorified as completely as after His ascension.
We reject the first as being no resurrection at all, but a creation; and doubt the fourth as not provable if true. That the third is preferable to the second may thus appear: Perhaps all will grant that our Lord's ordinary stay or abode between His resurrection and Ascension was in the invisible; His visible appearances during the forty days being only occasional. His body possessed then normally, and perhaps we may say naturally, in its risen nature, the power of invisibility, at will. It possessed, also a superiority to the control of the need of food, clothing, and other bodily necessities. But these are all new powers; possible by miracle, but not belong to man or to Jesus as a man.
The third therefore seems the preferable view. This view assumes that although our Lord's risen body had its own proper form and substance, yet that He was able, more or less, to modify it at will. By His self-modifying power He could not only enter the invisible instantaneously (Luke 24:31) but could appear under another form (Mark 16:12), could pass through material impediments (John 20:19). So it was, apparently, that our Lord after His resurrection (as at no previous time) seemed unrecognisable to the best acquainted eyes (John 20:14; 21:4, 7, 12). So His ready presence (Luke 24:36) at different places envinced His power of invisible and, probably, instantaneous transference through space at will.
However modified, temporarily or permanently, by will or by nature, it would be the same body; able to prove itself such to human eyes by resuming its own familiar peculiarities. So He could identify Himself to Thomas (John 20;25); he could be grasped by the women (Matthew 28:29); could (like the angels in Genesis 18:8; 19:3) invest Himself with garments, and eat and drink before His disciples (Luke 24:41-43).
All this involves not the idea either that His body was [fully] glorified, as after His Ascension; or, as some imagine, that it underwent a gradual glorifying process through the forty days. The endowment with the properties belonging to a resurrection body is one thing; His investiture at His enthronment with the full Mediatorial glories at God's right hand is quite another thing.
Weymouth: And then He showed them His hands and His feet.
WEB: When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.
Young’s: And having said this, he shewed to them the hands and the feet,
Conte (RC): And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.
24:40 And when He had thus spoken, He shewed them His hands and His feet. It has been suggested that the Risen simply pointed to those parts of his body which were not covered with clothing, and invited the disciples to touch these, and so to assure themselves that he had actually flesh and bone. Von Gerlach has an interesting suggestion that the feet were especially referred to "because there was in the feet something more convincing and touching than even in the hands, on account of the wonder that One who had been so grievously wounded could move."
The real reason, however, of the Lord calling attention to the hands and feet comes out from John's account of this appearance of the Risen, for he adds that Jesus also showed them His side. Thus He pointed to the wounded members of His blessed body to show that in the resurrection-body he retained these marks of his wounds. That he retained them now and for ever we know from the glorious vision of the Revelation, where the wounded humanity of the Lord appears throned and adored in the highest heaven: "Lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts [living creatures], and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain" (Revelation 5:6). Our Master and God retains these as the glorious tokens of his victory and atonement. 
Weymouth: But, while they still could not believe it for joy and were full of astonishment, He asked them, "Have you any food here?"
WEB: While they still didn't believe for joy, and wondered, he said to them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"
Young’s: and while they are not believing from the
joy, and wondering, he said to them, 'Have ye anything here to eat?'
Conte (RC): Then, while they were still in disbelief and in wonder out of joy, he said, "Do you have anything here to eat?"
24:41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? The paradox: They believe but they don’t believe. They know it’s true but it’s so wonderful “they can’t get their minds around it,” “they can’t let it sink in” (to use twentieth century rough equivalents for what it is clear they were going through). Faced with this, Jesus tries to shake them out of their shock by getting them to concentrate on getting Him some food and providing further evidence that He is quite, quite for real. 
Weymouth: And they gave Him a piece of roasted fish,
WEB: They gave him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb.
Young’s: and they gave to him part of a broiled
fish, and of an honeycomb,
Conte (RC): And they offered him a piece of roasted fish and a honeycomb.
24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish. The disciples gave probably just what was their own common fare and what was ready at the time. 
A meal of fish at Jerusalem might surprise us, if we did not learn from the Talmud that it was regularly supplied from the inexhaustible stores of the Lake of Gennesareth. 
and of an honeycomb. Honey abounded in Palestine and was a very common article of food. Bees lived in caves of the rocks; in the hollows of trees; and were also kept as with us. 
The clause “and of a honeycomb” is a late addition, being absent from all the four earliest manuscripts which contain the passage. 
Weymouth: and He took it and ate it in their presence.
WEB: He took them, and ate in front of them.
Young’s: and having taken, he did eat before them,
Conte (RC): And when he had eaten these in their sight, taking up what was left, he gave it to them.
24:43 And He took it, and did eat before them. Not to satisfy any hunger His body could have after His resurrection, but to prove to them that His body was truly raised; and seeing it cannot be supposed that Christ in this action designed any illusion, it follows from His truly eating, that His body had those parts by which meat is chewed and a stomach to receive it. 
This was one of the “infallible proofs” appealed to in Acts 1:3; compare John 21:12, 13: “who did eat and drink with Him after He rose from the dead,” Acts 10:41. A few manuscripts and versions here add, “and gave them the remains.” Jerome (adv. Pelag. ii) mentions a strange addition in some manuscripts, viz. that the disciples said that “the wickedness and incredulity of the age is a substance which does not permit the true virtue of God to be apprehended through impure spirits; therefore even now reveal Thy justice.” 
Weymouth: And He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you--that everything must be fulfilled that is written in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and the Psalms concerning me."
WEB: He said to them, "This is what I told you, while I was still with you, that all things which are written in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me must be fulfilled."
Young’s: and he said to them, 'These are the words
that I spake unto you, being yet with you, that it behoveth to be fulfilled all the things that are written in
the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms, about me.'
Conte (RC): And he said to them: "These are the words that I spoke to you when I was still with you, because all things must be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms about me."
24:44 And He said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you. This is the fulfillment of what I told you respecting My death. See Luke 18:33; Mark 10:34. 
while I was yet with you. Before My death. 
He looks back on the relations existing before His death, as now ended; He is no longer with them, except transiently and at intervals, and not at all to continue work like that in which He was then engaged. 
that all things must be fulfilled. He say[s] that in each of the divisions of the Old Testament [that He proceeds to list] there were prophecies respecting Himself. The particular subject before them was His resurrection from the dead. A most striking prediction of this is contained in Psalms 16:9-11. Compare it with Acts 2:24-32; 13:35-37. 
which were written in the law of Moses. The five books of Moses--Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Among the Jews this was the first division of the Old Testament and was called "the law." 
The remarks of Meyer and Van Oosterzee on this subject are well worthy of being quoted: "If the exegete should read the Old Testament Scriptures without knowing to whom and to what they everywhere point, the New Testament clearly directs his understanding, and places him under an obligation, if he would be a sound Christian teacher, to acknowledge its authority and interpret accordingly. Doubt as to the validity of our Lord and of his apostles' method of expounding, involves necessarily a renunciation of Christianity" (Meyer). 
and in the prophets. This was the second and largest part of the Hebrew Scriptures. It [included] the books of Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, which were called the "former prophets;" and Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve smaller books from Daniel to Malachi, which were called the "latter prophets." 
and in the psalms concerning Me. The word here probably means what were [included] under the name of Hagiographa, or holy writings. It [included] the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, and the two books of Chronicles. This division of the Old Testament was in use long before the time of Christ and was what He referred to here. 
In depth: Relationship of this discussion between Jesus and the apostles and that found in Acts 1 . Some harmonists make the following discourse parallel to what is related in Acts 1:4ff., as if an interval of near forty days had passed. But there is no hint of any such separation in the record; on the contrary, Luke connects this to the preceding precisely as if Christ went on naturally from verse 43. The section is to be regarded as a provisional and private instruction, followed by a commission, different from the public and more formal declarations in Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-18; and Acts 1:4-8.
Weymouth: Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
WEB: Then he opened their minds, that they might understand the Scriptures.
Young’s: Then opened he up their understanding to
understand the Writings,
Conte (RC): Then he opened their mind, so that they might understand the Scriptures.
24:45 Then opened He their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures. Enabled them fully to comprehend the meaning of the prophecies that foretold His death and resurrection. 
This seems to describe an effect produced in them such that they were thenceforward to be capable of discerning the true sense of any prophecy of the Old Testament. What could it be but a larger measure of the Spirit by which the prophets were borne on, when they uttered their messages from God? (Compare verse 32; Psalms 119:18; 1 Corinthians 2:10ff; Matthew 11:27; 16:17; John 16:13). 
Weymouth: and He said, "Thus it is written that the Christ would suffer and on the third day rise again from among the dead;
WEB: He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day,
Young’s: and he said to them -- 'Thus it hath been
written, and thus it was behoving the Christ to
suffer, and to rise out of the dead the third day,
Conte (RC): And he said to them: "For so it is written, and so it was necessary, for the Christ to suffer and to rise up from the dead on the third day,
24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day. The absence of passages in the Old Testament clearly applicable to the clause “on the third day” (our Savior found this foreshadowed in the restoration of Jonah, after three days), may have caused the words “and thus it behooved” to be added as an explanatory gloss. But our Savior passes freely from the things expressly spoken beforehand about Him to those which were logically or historically involved in them. This remark applies especially to the next verse, which also comes in here as a part of the things which were written, because, to the Savior’s mind, they are a mere extension of that. 
Weymouth: and that proclamation would be made, in His name, of repentance and forgiveness of sins to all the nations, beginning in Jerusalem.
WEB: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Young’s: and reformation and remission of sins to
be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem:
Conte (RC): and, in his name, for repentance and the remission of sins to be preached, among all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
24:47 And that repentance. Sorrow for sin and forsaking of it. 
and remission of sins. Pardon or forgiveness of sins. 
should be preached. The truth is not going to magically jump into the person’s mind. It has to be shared with them. By writing, by person, by audio, by sermon, by casual conversation. The means are virtually endless. Yes, most are unconcerned and aren’t going to change, but shouldn’t we give those who are desirous of a greater ethical excellence the opportunity to know how to obtain it and to be reconciled to the God who has been appalled by their past life? The past does not have to be the future. For any one. [rw]
in His name. By My command. 
among all nations. It was proper that the necessity of repentance should be preached among all nations for all were sinners. See Acts 17:30. 
See Genesis 12:3, “all families of the earth.” Psalms 22:27, “all kindreds of the nations.” Isaiah 49:6. 
beginning at Jerusalem. “To the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16). 
“For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem,” Isaiah 2:3; Micah 4:2. 
What more logical place to begin the preaching than where they already were! There is a principle here that would be well heeded by those anxious to “take the gospel to the lost in X (name the country).” Have you looked out your window lately and considered how many in your own state have no concern for either gospel doctrine or for the Divinely revealed principles of moral excellence? Might not “the lost” be considerably closer and might not that be the more appropriate place to begin? [rw]
Weymouth: You are witnesses as to these things.
WEB: You are witnesses of these things.
Young’s: and ye -- ye are witnesses of these
Conte (RC): And you are witnesses of these things.
24:48 And ye are witnesses. This verse describes the primary function of the apostles, and eye-witnesses generally, of the risen Jesus. 
of these things. Of My life, My sufferings, My death, and My resurrection. 
Or (in more detail): “These things” are the same that He has been so designating in verses 26, 44; namely, those pertaining to His resurrection from the grave, implying the fact of His death and burial, as it occurred. Of course, these naturally drew after them the account of His whole public life. Compare Acts 1:8, 22ff. Here is no formal consecration to an office; that had already been done, so far as was necessary; but it was a statement of the first and most important duty involved in the office of the apostles, and which every disciple could discharge, in his measure, who had seen Christ alive from the dead. How clearly the apostles recognized this as their duty, see Acts 2:32; 3:15; as well as the tenor of their whole proclamation throughout the Acts. 
Weymouth: And remember that I am about to send out my Father's promised gift to rest upon you. But, as for you, wait patiently in the city until you are clothed with power from on high."
WEB: Behold, I send forth the promise of my Father on you. But wait in the city of Jerusalem until you are clothed with power from on high."
Young’s: 'And, lo, I do send the promise of my
Father upon you, but ye -- abide ye in the city of
Jerusalem till ye be clothed with power from on high.'
Conte (RC): And I am sending the Promise of my Father upon you. But you must stay in the city, until such time as you are clothed with power from on high."
24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of My Father upon you. The promise which the Father had made to them through the Savior. See Matthew 10:19-20; John 14:16-17, 26. The promise was that they should be aided by the promise of the Holy Ghost. He also doubtless referred to the promise of God made in the days of Joel, respecting the outpouring of the Holy [Spirit]. See Joel 2:28-29, compared with Acts 2:16-21. 
This would be the indispensable prerequisite to the discharge of their office. Compare 1 Corinthians 2:12-16. Not yet fully understanding this, they might be inclined to go forth on their mission prematurely.  [Hence He immediately adds:]
but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem. This must have been uttered after the return to Jerusalem from the visit to Galilee. (Matt. xxviii. 16-20; John xxi. 1-24.) This command was repeated just before His ascension. (Acts i. 4.) 
until ye be endued with power from on high. The power which would be given them by the descent of the Holy [Spirit]. The power of speaking with tongues, of working miracles, and of preaching the gospel with the attending blessing and aid of the Holy [Spirit]. This was accomplished in the gift of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. 
Rather [translate], “until ye put on the garment of.” For the metaphor see Romans 13:14; Ephesians 4:24, etc. We are unclothed till we receive heavenly gifts. “They had been washed (John 15:3), now the clothing is promised.” Bengel. 
Weymouth: And He brought them out to within view of Bethany, and then lifted up His hands and blessed them.
WEB: He led them out as far as Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
Young’s: And he led them forth without -- unto
Bethany, and having lifted up his hands he did bless them,
Conte (RC): Then he led them out as far as Bethania. And lifting up his hands, he blessed them.
24:50 And He led them out as far as Bethany. When he says (Acts 1:12) that after the ascension they returned from the Mount called Olivet, we understand him perfectly, knowing that Bethany is on the Mount of Olives, on the eastern slope. 
Bethany was the abode of Martha and Mary and Lazarus, and our Savior delighted to be there. 
The spot on Olivet whence the ascension took place, is not precisely indicated. Tradition fixed the scene as at the highest summit of the ridge. It is as likely to have been in some retired nook near His beloved Bethany. The phrase “as far as to Bethany” marks the terminus ad quem of His movement without obliging us to think that He entered the village. 
and He lifted up His hands. A [gesture] commonly used among the ancients in giving a benediction (Leviticus 9:22). 
and blessed them. Besought, with thanksgiving and praise, God’s blessing on them. We may imagine what intensity and fullness of desire breathed through His prayer. 
In depth: How Luke consciously consolidates events weeks apart in his description of what is happening . This also (compare on verse 44) is added as though no space of time came between it and the preceding discourse; but all followed on the evening of the resurrection day. Yet we find, in Acts 1:8-10, that Luke was distinctly aware that Jesus had continued on the earth forty days longer.
During that time took place the meeting with the eleven (John 20:26-28), when Thomas was present, and the last disbeliever was convinced; His appearance to seven of the apostles, in the familiar scene by the Sea of Tiberias (John 21:1-24); and again to the eleven, in the mountain in Galilee (Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:15-18), where He formally renewed and expanded their apostolic commission.
Some have supposed that at the time of writing his Gospel, Luke had not learned clearly this succession of events, but was informed of it before he composed the Acts. As Paul, however, with whom Luke was so intimately associated, had shown before this (1 Corinthians 15:4-7) that he knew well of a considerable interval between the resurrection and the ascension, it is hard to believe that Luke did not understand it before he wrote first.
It is more probable that Luke, knowing well that some time elapsed before the ascension, but expecting to speak of that more fully in his later treatise, now threw into one view, “a perspective view,” as it has been called, all which he thought it necessary to communicate now concerning the interval before the ascension, and the ascension itself. Some think that an intimation of successive stages of the history is given, in the repetition of “and He said unto them,” in verses 38, 44, 46, as well as in our verse. There is nothing, certainly, in this passage, like a night experience, and it must have been conceived of as running deep into the night, if it followed upon the events of that first Lord’s Day.
Weymouth: And while He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into Heaven.
WEB: It happened, while he blessed them, that he withdrew from them, and was carried up into heaven.
Young’s: and it came to pass, in his blessing
them, he was parted from them, and was borne up to the heaven;
Conte (RC): And it happened that, while he was blessing them, he withdrew from them, and he was carried up into heaven.
24:51 And it came to pass, while He blessed them. The final time He did so in this world. What better note on which to end His temporal relationship with the apostles? [rw]
He was parted from them. Disappeared from them: this word is used of persons disappearing, with no reference whatever to the mode of it. Xenophon (Anab. i. 4, 7) uses very nearly the same phrase in speaking of some persons embarking with their effects on board a vessel, and being no longer in sight. 
and carried up into heaven. In considering the questions which suggest themselves in connection with the ascension of our blessed Lord, we are met on the threshold with the fact that only Luke, in his Gospel in this place, and in the Acts (chapter 1), has given us a detailed account of the scene. But the fact is referred to plainly by John (3:13; 6:62; 20:17) and by Paul (Ephesians 4:9-10; 1 Timothy 3:16). 
The omission of the Ascension by Matthew and John would be more remarkable if it was not assumed by them both (John 3:13, 6:62, 20:17; Matthew 24:30). 
heaven. The language is used as the most practical way to describe the permanent departure from this cosmos to the better one of eternity: Borne on a cloud, as we see in the Acts, slowly and visibly, before their eyes. The upward direction according with the popular conception of the celestial locality, as above the firmament—a conception almost inevitable for everyone, since the traditions of language have identified the blessed abodes with the sky. 
Since we know from observation that heaven—as described in the Scriptures or even anything conceptually equivalent—can’t be found on this physical globe. As we associate “going down” as failure and as ultimately embodied in death, where else can the human mind place heaven except “upward,” the terminology we associate in other fields with success, triumph and victory? The conceptual “freight” carried by language could hardly place it anywhere else! [rw]
An effort to describe the location of “heaven” as within this cosmos? Whither did the person of Jesus ascend? Into heaven. But where is heaven? We know not its locality in the immensity of the universe. Astronomers, indeed, tell us that there is a center of our solar system, and that is the sun. But the sun is a member of a larger system, which has its center or sun. And this is a member of a still grander system revolving around its center. At last there is a center of the whole universe. At that center resides the great Mover of the whole. There, doubtless, is the central residence of God. To that center, perhaps, Jesus departed. At any rate, heaven is away from this earth, and away from this earth is up. Wherever heaven is, therefore, it is up. 
Or: Another option: Those who enjoy science fiction are apt to think in terms of the concept of a “parallel reality,” coexisting with the reality we see and touch. “Here” perhaps “geographically” or not but still “somewhere” in a reality coexistent with our own. Such incredible and impossible things as black holes and “dark matter” can now be documented as existing but even such phenomena that exist in our present reality were hard to deduce and prove. How much less could we possibly prove the contents of a concurrent reality parallel to our own—all or part of which is “heaven” and “hell”—how could it be determined reliably except by Divine revelation! [rw]
In depth: The reality of the bodily Ascension into heaven . Inasmuch as Luke alone of the Evangelists explicitly describes the visible and bodily Ascension of Jesus, adverse criticism has questioned the reality of the fact. The New Testament, they admit, does plentifully assume that Christ is in heaven, but perhaps His soul only (Matthew 26:64; John 20:17; Acts 2:33; Ephesians 4:10; 1 Peter 3:22). But,
1. Since the body of Jesus rose in possession of supernatural qualities belonging to a resurrection body, either He must have passed through another death, and that a death of a resurrection body, or He must have gone [bodily] into heaven.
2. The representation of His bodily return at the Judgment Advent (Matthew 25:31) necessarily implied a bodily Ascension.
3. The unanimous and intense faith of the Church in His Ascension can be no otherwise explained than upon the ground that His Ascension was visibly witnessed.
4. The explicit and circumstantial narrative of one Evangelist would be sufficient, without either of the preceding reasons; with them, we hold any doubt to be superfluous and foolish. All assume the fact, but he supplies the mode.
Weymouth: They worshipped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.
WEB: They worshiped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy,
Young’s: and they, having bowed before him, did
turn back to Jerusalem with great joy,
Conte (RC): And worshiping, they returned to Jerusalem with great joy.
24:52 And they worshipped Him. Certainly in the strictest sense of adoration. 
and returned to Jerusalem. For fuller details see Acts 1:3-12. 
with great joy. Observe the change. The same disciples who could not be comforted on account of the sorrow which filled their hearts at the mention of His departure (John 16:6) now, after His ascension, return to Jerusalem full of joy and without one pang at the parting. 
[With great joy] as Jesus had promised (John 16:20, 22). It is remarkable that they showed great joy now that they were losing for ever the earthly presence of their Lord. It shows their faith in the promise that His spiritual presence should be even nearer and more precious (John 14:28, 16:7). 
Weymouth: Afterwards they were continually in attendance at the Temple, blessing God.
WEB: and were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.
Young’s: and were continually in the temple,
praising and blessing God. Amen.
Conte (RC): And they were always in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.
24:53 And were continually. That is, whenever the appointed services called them thither; but not so as to prevent their having a place of assembling to themselves (Acts 1:13). 
in the temple. I.e., every day at the regular hours of prayer till the day of Pentecost. . . . that is, about ten days after. See Acts 2. 
The temple, which has been the scene for so many ages of all authorized public worship of the true God, and which Jesus has consecrated to their hearts by His participation with them there, will not readily be forsaken by the disciples. The Master has taught them to tarry about it for the present, and great changes in their views of what is involved in the gospel will be required before they can willingly desert it. The Acts will show the history of that change. 
praising. Which is the fruit of joy. 
How powerful the contrast of their present courage with their despair at the death of Christ. 
and blessing God. Chiefly for the full proof that the Messiah had come, had redeemed them, and had ascended to heaven. 
(with number code)
1 = Adam Clarke. The New Testament . . . with a Commentary and
Critical Notes. Volume I: Matthew to the Acts. Reprint, Nashville,
Tennessee: Abingdon Press.
2 = Marvin R. Vincent. Word Studies in the New Testament. Volume I:
The Synoptic Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Epistles of Peter, James,
and Jude. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887; 1911 printing.
3 = J. S. Lamar. Luke. [Eugene S. Smith, Publisher; reprint, 1977 (?)]
4 = Charles H. Hall. Notes, Practical and Expository on the Gospels;
volume two: Luke-John. New York: Hurd and Houghton, 1856,
5 = John Kitto. Daily Bible Illustrations. Volume II: Evening Series:
The Life and Death of Our Lord. New York: Robert Carter and
6 = Thomas M. Lindsay. The Gospel According to St. Luke. Two
volumes. New York: Scribner & Welford, 1887.
7 = W. H. van Doren. A Suggestive Commentary on the New Testament:
Saint Luke. Two volumes. New York: D. Appleton and Company,
8 = Melancthon W. Jacobus. Notes on the Gospels, Critical and
Explanatory: Luke and John. New York: Robert Carter &
Brothers, 1856; 1872 reprint.
9 = Alfred Nevin. Popular Expositor of the Gospels and Acts: Luke.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Ziegler & McCurdy, 1872.
10 = Alfred Nevin. The Parables of Jesus. Philadelphia: Presbyterian
Board of Publication, 1881.
11 = Albert Barnes. "Luke." In Barnes' Notes on the New Testament.
Reprint, Kregel Publications, 1980.
12 = Alexander B. Bruce. The Synoptic Gospels. In The Expositor's
Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Reprint, Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
13 = F. Godet. A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. Translated
from the Second French Edition by E. W. Shalders and M. D. Cusin.
New York: I. K. Funk & Company, 1881.
14 = D.D. Whedon. Commentary on the Gospels: Luke-John. New
York: Carlton & Lanahan, 1866; 1870 reprint.
15 = Henry Alford. The Greek Testament. Volume I: The Four Gospels.
Fifth Edition. London: Rivingtons, 1863.
16 = David Brown. "Luke" in Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and
David Brown, A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the
Old and New Testaments. Volume II: New Testament. Hartford:
S. S. Scranton Company, no date.
17 = Dr. [no first name provided] MacEvilly. An Exposition of the Gospel
of St. Luke. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1886.
18 = H. D. M. Spence. “Luke.” In the Pulpit Commentary, edited by H. D.
M. Spence. Reprinted by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
19 = John Calvin. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists,
Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Translated by William Pringle. Reprint,
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
20 = Thomas Scott. The Holy Bible ...with Explanatory Notes (and)
Practical Observations. Boston: Crocker and Brewster.
21 = Henry T. Sell. Bible Studies in the Life of Christ: Historical and
Constructive. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1902.
22 = Philip Vollmer. The Modern Student's Life of Christ. New York:
Fleming H. Revell Company, 1912.
23 = Heinrich A. W. Meyer. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the
Gospels of Mark and Luke. Translated from the Fifth German
Edition by Robert Ernest Wallis. N. Y.: Funk and Wagnalls,
1884; 1893 printing.
24 = John Albert Bengel. Gnomon of the New Testament. A New
Translation by Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent.
Volume One. Philadelphia: Perkinpine & Higgins, 1860.
25 = John Cummings. Sabbath Evening Readers on the New Testa-
ment: St. Luke. London:Arthur Hall, Virtue & Co,1854.
26 = Walter F. Adeney, editor. The Century Bible: A Modern
Commentary--Luke. New York: H. Frowdey, 1901. Title page
missing from copy.
27 = Pasquier Quesnel. The Gospels with Reflections on Each Verse.
Volumes I and II. (Luke is in part of both). New York: Anson
D. F. Randolph, 1855; 1867 reprint.
28 = Charles R. Erdman. The Gospel of Luke: An Exposition.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1921; 1936 reprint.
29 = Elvira J. Slack. Jesus: The Man of Galilee. New York: National
Board of the Young Womens Christian Associations, 1911.
30 = Arthur Ritchie. Spiritual Studies in St. Luke's Gospel. Milwaukee:
The Young Churchman Company, 1906.
31 = Bernhard Weiss. A Commentary on the New Testament. Volume
Two: Luke-The Acts. New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company,1906.
32 = Matthew Henry. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Volume V:
Matthew to John. 17--. Reprint, New York: Fleming H. Revell
Company, no date.
33 = C. G. Barth. The Bible Manual: An Expository and Practical
Commentary on the Books of Scripture. Second Edition.
London: James Nisbet and Company, 1865.
34 = Nathaniel S. Folsom. The Four Gospels: Translated . . . and with
Critical and Expository Notes. Third Edition. Boston: Cupples,
Upham, and Company, 1871; 1885 reprint.
35 = Henry Burton. The Gospel according to Luke. In the Expositor's
Bible series. New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1895.
36 = [Anonymous]. Choice Notes on the Gospel of S. Luke, Drawn from
Old and New Sources. London: Macmillan & Company, 1869.
37 = Marcus Dods. The Parables of Our Lord. New York: Fleming H.
Revell Company, 18--.
38 = Alfred Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.
Second Edition. New York: Anson D. F. Randolph and Company,
39 = A. T. Robertson. Luke the Historian in the Light of Research.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1920; 1930 reprint.
40 = James R. Gray. Christian Workers' Commentary on the Old and
New Testaments. Chicago: Bible Institute Colportage Associat-
ion/Fleming H. Revell Company, 1915.
41 = W. Sanday. Outlines of the Life of Christ. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1905.
42 = Halford E. Luccock. Studies in the Parables of Jesus. New York:
Methodist Book Concern, 1917.
43 = George H. Hubbard. The Teaching of Jesus in Parables. New
York: Pilgrim Press, 1907.
44 = Charles S. Robinson. Studies in Luke's Gospel. Second Series.
New York:American Tract Society, 1890.
45 = John Laidlaw. The Miracles of Our Lord. New York: Funk &
Wagnalls Company, 1892.
46 = William M. Taylor. The Miracles of Our Saviour. Fifth Edition.
New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son, 1890; 1903 reprint.
47 = Alexander Maclaren. Expositions of Holy Scripture: St. Luke.
New York: George H. Doran Company, [no date].
48 = George MacDonald. The Miracles of Our Lord. New York:
George Routledge & Sons, 1878.
49 = Joseph Parker. The People's Bibles: Discourses upon Holy Scrip-
ture—Mark-Luke. New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 18--.
50 = Daniel Whitby and Moses Lowman. A Critical Commentary and
Paraphrase on the New Testament: The Four Gospels and the Acts
of the Apostles. Philadelphia: Carey & Hart, 1846.
51 = Matthew Poole. Annotations on the Holy Bible. 1600s.
52 = George R. Bliss. Luke. In An American Commentary on the New
Testament. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society,
53 = J. W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton. The Fourfold Gospel.
54 = John Trapp. Commentary on the Old and New Testaments. 1654.
55 = Ernest D. Burton and Shailer Matthews. The Life of Christ.
Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1900; 5th reprint,
56 = Frederic W. Farrar. The Gospel According to St. Luke. In “The
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges” series. Cambridge: At
the University Press, 1882.