Luke 24:4Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

To affirm that the resurrection occurred at dawn, it’s noted that while some women were unaware, others possessed knowledge of it. Those who remained steadfastly day and night understood, while those who departed were left uninformed. One Mary Magdalene, as mentioned by John, did not know of the resurrection, but another Mary Magdalene, according to Matthew, was aware. It is implausible for it to be the same Mary who first comprehended and then lacked knowledge. While it may seem unlikely, it is conceivable that there were multiple individuals named Mary; thus, the existence of several Magdalens is also possible. A name typically signifies a person and may also indicate their place of origin.

It is evident that there were two distinct Mary Magdalens. The first was permitted to kneel before the Lord, while the second was instructed not to touch Him; the first encountered an angel, whereas the second arrived early and found no one; the first joyfully announced to the disciples the resurrection of the Lord, while the second reported that He had been taken away; the first experienced joy, but the second was filled with sorrow; the first met Christ in His radiant glory, whereas the second continued seeking the dead; the first recognized the Lord and believed, but the second saw Him and could not identify Him; the first worshiped with a sincere heart, while the second was troubled by uncertainty and doubt.

Following the angel's guidance, they rushed to share this joyful news with the apostles, yet they were so overwhelmed with fear that they did not disclose anything to those they encountered along the way, to whom this message was relevant (Mk. 16:8).

They were instructed to inform His disciples that He had risen from the dead and would go before them into Galilee, where they would see Him.

The accounts of the angel’s message are shared consistently among the first three Evangelists, with only a slight difference regarding the number of angels and their location. Matthew and Mark mention the presence of one angel, referred to as an angel by Matthew and a young man by Mark, while Luke indicates that two men appeared. The differing titles (angel, young man, man) hold no significant theological weight. Angels, being invisible spirits, must assume a form when appearing to people; given their radiant appearance, the women, overwhelmed by this extraordinary sight, fell to the ground (Luke 24:5). It is conceivable that the angel that spoke appeared to some as a young man and to others as a man; it is possible that some women perceived only one angel in this form, while others saw two. The validity of the resurrection did not hinge on whether one or two angels appeared but rather on the content of the spoken message, and the presence of a non-speaking angel was irrelevant to the narrative purpose. Thus, while two Evangelists report one angel addressing the women, the third adds the detail of another angel being present. As for the location of the angel’s message, Luke’s account does not clarify whether it was given inside or outside the tomb. Mark states the speaking angel was in the tomb, but Matthew, despite saying the angel rolled away the stone and sat on it (Matt. 28:2), does not specify where he addressed the women; it could be inferred from the phrase ‘Come, see the place where the Lord lay’ that this invitation was made outside of the tomb, perhaps while sitting on the stone. Yet since the stone was rolled away before the women arrived, it is probable that the angel, shining like lightning, was seen by the guards, who trembled and became as dead men (Matt. 28:4), while the women may have seen him inside the tomb. It is also possible that an angel appeared to all the women at the entrance, announced Christ’s resurrection, and invited them to enter the tomb to see for themselves that He had truly risen. Upon entering, they beheld (as Mark narrates) a young man sitting on the right side and then heard the angel speak again, creating a scenario where Luke reports two men appearing to them. Regardless, it was paramount for the Evangelists to affirm that the stone was rolled away, the tomb was empty, and the angel provided the women with an explanation of this emptiness; whether one or two angels spoke was secondary to the Evangelists’ focus.

The challenges raised against the resurrection of Christ often aimed to underscore the unreliability of the Evangelists’ accounts. Detractors knew that undermining belief in His resurrection could subsequently weaken faith in Him as the God-Man, the Son of God. However, these efforts were ultimately futile. The truth of Christ’s resurrection has been assured, and the objections raised have been countered.

The primary objection concerns the assertion that Jesus did not truly die on the cross, but instead entered a state of deep unconsciousness. This claim is countered by scientific and medical reasoning. Professor A. Shiltov, in his work ‘Thoughts on the God-Man,’ explains that the severe scourging and torment Jesus underwent, combined with the loss of blood and vital exposure on the cross, would lead to death — evidenced by the blood and water flowing from His pierced side; additionally, the thorough wounds to His hands and feet and the lung perforation caused by the spear confirm this. To suggest that Jesus survived this ordeal only to later rise contradicts medical understanding; someone in deep unconsciousness could not endure such considerable trauma. Therefore, if Christ did not die on the cross and thus did not resurrect, one would have to regard Him simply as an ordinary man. According to Professor Shiltov, the wounds sustained would prevent any mobility for at least two weeks. Yet, on the third day, Christ not only traversed the distance from Jerusalem to Emmaus but returned the same day to reconvene with His Apostles; thus, He walked twenty miles with punctured feet. Such a feat could only have been accomplished by the God-Man with a glorified body. Moreover, if one accepts the notion of His surviving on the cross, it implies that Jesus intended to deceive His followers about His resurrection, hiding afterward and living in obscurity — thereby contradicting the character of someone who is morally beyond reproach, recognized even by atheists as the pinnacle of moral perfection.

Another objection, articulated by D. Strauss, states that if Jesus emerged from the tomb in a weakened state, it would not inspire the conviction of victory over death among the disciples. He contends that such a state would provide no credible impression of triumph, weakening the disciples’ response rather than invigorating it. The strength of their subsequent evangelism thus rests on their firm belief in His genuine resurrection, as D. Strauss acknowledges that such conviction could only arise from their tangible experiences following His resurrection.

When the apostles received the testimony of the numerous witnesses claiming to have seen the risen Christ, their initial incredulity reflects a deep-seated despair. The state of their hearts post-crucifixion was not one of keen anticipation for a resurrection but of hopelessness following the death of their Master. When Mary Magdalene reported to the Apostles that the Lord had been taken away, they entered the tomb and found it empty, but doubt still clouded their hearts (John 20:2, 9, 10). Despite hearing of Christ’s resurrection, they struggled to comprehend and believe, as illustrated by the encounters of Mary Magdalene and other women who testified of Christ's appearance — their reports seemed unbelievable to the disciples (Luke 24:11).

Yet the true transformation began with Christ’s resurrection and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. When the Holy Spirit came upon them, the apostles were empowered to preach boldly about their experiences, forming the foundation of the early church. This empowerment marked a profound change from doubt to conviction, enabling them to proclaim the truth of the risen Christ effectively.

Ultimately, it is the Holy Spirit’s coming that guides them into all truth, fulfilling Christ's promise to remind them of all He had said (John 14:26; 16:13). The resurrection and the subsequent coming of the Holy Spirit coalesce to affirm the reality of Christ’s divine nature, and they embolden the apostles to spread the gospel vibrantly. The essence of their transformation and the remarkable growth of faith in the risen Christ reinforces the reality that something extraordinary indeed occurred on that monumental day of Pentecost.

One insightful commentator has remarked on the differences among the Gospel accounts concerning this matter: "Those who coldly hunt for contradictions in the Gospel narratives, do you not realize that the Evangelists do not specify the number of angels that appeared to the women? The entire tomb and its surroundings were filled with angelic presences, unseen. There were not merely two or three angels, but countless multitudes, and the women did not always see the same one, nor just two at a time. At times one angel appeared, then another, sometimes two together; in this spot, then another; speaking varying messages. It is reasonable to conclude that the Evangelists, similar to many other instances, do not provide a comprehensive account of the event but instead focus on particular aspects or details, leaving out others. Therefore, from the fullness of their accounts, a complete history of the event does not fully emerge. When one narrator highlights a key detail, another mentions a different one, and a third speaks of yet another; they do not contradict one another but rather complement each other."