And after these things he was manifested in another form to two of them as they walked, going into the country;
Mark gives the whole Emmaus road journey a single sentence, and then moves on. Two questions sit inside that sentence. What does "in another form" mean? And why does Mark hurry past a story Luke tells at length?
Luke devotes most of a chapter to what Mark packs into a line. Commentators note the contrast openly:
Next our writer gives us fully, and with the most touching detail, that appearing of the risen Lord which the Gospel of Mark sums up in a single verse.
Mark's compression is not carelessness. His closing chapter keeps returning to one thing — how the news was received:
Here, in Mark, one thing stands out: the disciples would not accept Mary's testimony that she had seen the Lord. They would not accept the testimony of the two who had travelled that day to Emmaus either. They believed that the Lord had appeared to Peter, an apostle (Luke 24:34). They did not believe He had appeared to the others.
These two are the pair Luke describes on the road to Emmaus. Mark places their meeting second, after Mary's, and their direction of travel tells the story:
Second comes His appearance to the two going into the country, which Luke gives us in such detail. These men had not denied Him like Peter. But they had so lost heart that they were drifting away from Jerusalem with no aim. It was as if they now wanted to turn their backs on a place filled for them with broken hopes and a most tragic loss and disappointment. Then they saw the risen Christ. That sight turned their footsteps around and brought them back to their brothers with the glad news.
One writer draws a lesson from where they stood and where they walked:
Let us remember they were of the company at Jerusalem, but not in their place. They were walking away, as if all were over and lost. Things had turned out very differently from what they had expected. They were sadly disappointed. Is not this a picture of many today?
The word translated "form" here is rare. One writer traces where else it appears:
The word translated "formed" in Galatians 4:19 is used only there in the New Testament. It comes from a similar word meaning form, which is used three times, always of our Lord (Mark 16:12; Phil. 2:6-7).
Commentators differ on the reason for the change. One writer offers a suggestion:
In His divine power our Lord can show Himself at any time in various ways and forms, for Omnipotence can do all things. But a clear difference seems to be present here. He could have appeared to them just as He was before His death. The suggestion, though, is that in resurrection He was not on the same level as before. He was on a higher one, where then and now faith alone can grasp Him... And what about His own promise in Matthew: "I am with you always, to the end of the age"? It assures us that even if our eyes are held so that we do not recognise Him, He is with His people in person — our blessed, risen Lord.
Another writer connects His risen appearances with how He had appeared long before:
In His risen days He took different forms, to suit, in divine grace, the need or demand of the moment; as He had done long before, whether as a stranger or a visitor.
The two come back with news, and no one believes them. That failure runs through the whole chapter. One writer sets it against something that does not fail:
We see, then, that in each case the testimony given through His own people fails. That could leave us cast down. But the value of His own direct word shines out by contrast, for so long as He is glorified, that is all we want... Now notice the result when He spoke to them directly: "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them... they went out and preached everywhere." What a contrast!
That stubbornness, however, serves a purpose for later readers:
Even that did not overcome their unbelief and low spirits. It is just as well for us that it was so. Resurrection carries us outside the present order of things. His resurrection is a fact of such immense importance that it needed repeated evidence of a kind no one could question.
- One line — Mark sums up in one verse the journey Luke tells in full. His interest is not the road but how people received the news.
- Two walkers — they belonged to the company at Jerusalem, but they were not in their place. They drifted away from a city of broken hopes, until the sight of the risen Christ turned them back.
- Another form — the word for "form" is used three times in the New Testament, always of the Lord.
- Faith's level — writers differ on why they did not know Him. One suggests resurrection set Him on a higher level, which faith alone can grasp. Another sees grace taking the form the moment needed. Either way, He is with His people even when they do not recognise Him.
- His own word — every human testimony in this chapter fails. Only when the Lord Himself spoke did they go out and preach everywhere.
and *they* went and brought word to the rest; neither did they believe them.
Mark's closing summary moves fast. Two disciples meet the risen Lord on the road and hurry back with the news, and the rest refuse to believe them. Why does Mark end his Gospel by piling up the failures of the very people who would soon carry the message to the world?
Mark gives one line. Commentators match it with Luke's fuller account and name the pair.
He appeared to two disciples as they were walking into the country. These were clearly the two spoken of in Luke 24:13-33, Cleopas and his companion. It is said that He appeared in another form, and neither Mary nor these two knew Him when they first saw Him. Luke 24:16 tells us that their eyes were kept from recognizing Him. Why it says "another form" I do not know. When these disciples told the others what they had seen, the others still did not believe.
The other Gospels stress the faith of the disciples. Mark stresses their unbelief. One writer suggests that both were present at once in the same hearts.
This is hard to line up with the accounts in the other Gospels, as writers admit. There, faith is stressed; here, unbelief. A possible answer is this. In Mark, in each of these appearings, unbelief stands out in the story, and it may have gone side by side with faith. Both are in our own hearts, as we know. Perhaps each had a place in the hearts of the disciples. They could believe and yet not fully believe. They could rejoice and yet not be fully sure.
Not everyone in the room refused, as another writer points out.
There were some exceptions to this, however, for Luke 24:33-34 shows that some told them the Lord was risen and had appeared to Simon. At least some had believed Simon when he told what had happened to him. But Mark does not mention this.
Why were they so slow? One writer does not point to a shortage of proof. He points to the hardness of our own hearts.
Let me ask, does this slowness surprise us? I would say, it need not… "Is anything too hard for the LORD?" No; but our hearts are hard. Earlier, the apostles had not thought about the miracle of the loaves and the pieces they gathered up. That was because their hearts were hard (Mark 6:52). Here too, hardness of heart is what accounts for this unbelief. By nature we do not think of His power as it deserves, and we do not think of His grace as it deserves either… We are unwilling to receive any good news from God.
The two turned around and carried the good news back. It changed nothing in the room. One writer sees a benefit in that for us.
Seeing the risen Christ turned them round and brought them back to their brothers with the good news. Even that did not overcome their unbelieving gloom. It is just as well for us that it was so. Resurrection carries us outside the present order of things. His resurrection is a fact of such vast importance that it must rest on many proofs, and proofs no one can question.
Every report carried by His own people has failed so far. One writer draws the contrast with what happens next.
We see then that in each case the testimony given through His own people fails. We might well be cast down, except that the value of His own direct word shines out by contrast… Now notice the result when He speaks to them Himself. "So then the Lord Jesus, after He had spoken to them… they went out and preached everywhere." What a contrast! And has it no lesson for us? As believers, do we not want Him to speak directly to us, in His word?
The men who would not believe are the same men He sends out. Watch the order of what He does with them.
The risen Lord has here, in Mark, as in all the Gospels, to rebuke this unbelief of the apostles. But He removes it as well as rebukes it, pardoning it along the way. He then seals that pardon by the hand of a witness of great dignity. He puts them into the ministry. He entrusts the honour and power of His name to them in front of every creature.
- Cause — their refusal came from hard hearts, the same dullness seen earlier over the loaves. It was not a shortage of evidence.
- Condition — faith and unbelief may have sat side by side in them. Mark shows the unbelief; the other Gospels show the faith.
- Confirmation — because they resisted a true report, His resurrection rests on proof that no one can call easy belief.
- Contrast — every human report here fails. Only when the Lord speaks Himself do they go out and preach everywhere.
- Commission — He rebukes their unbelief and pardons it. Then He hands these same men His name to carry to every creature.