In terms of what the glorified body is like, we have roughly two different sources of information. In the NT, we have the Gospel accounts, especially Lk 24 and Jn 20-21. In addition, we have 1 Cor 15. There are other passages, but these are less detailed. There are also some OT passages.
1 Corinthians and the Gospels belong to different genres. The Gospel accounts are historical narratives which describe the postmortem appearances of Jesus, as well conversations. By contrast, 1 Corinthians is more expository. But that’s not a hard and fast distinction, for the Gospels contain interpretive statements.
Christ’s glorified body is a prototype for the resurrection of the just. So we can learn some things about the glorified body from these accounts.
On the one hand, he wasn’t restored to life in the same condition he died in. His wounds have healed. On the other hand, he retains scars from his ordeal.
We might focus on the recognition scenes. Some readers infer from Lk 24:16,31 that the glorified body of Jesus had the capacity to materialize and dematerialize at will. However, that’s a fallacious inference.
For one thing, the divine passives indicate that the observers were kept from perceiving Jesus. They didn’t hallucinate seeing Jesus. Rather, they hallucinated not seeing Jesus. Instead of perceiving something that wasn’t there, they failed to perceive something that was there–until the psychological impediment was removed. Like hysterical blindness.
His body wasn’t objectively invisible, but subjectively invisible. That’s probably how Jesus could slip through lynch mobs undetected (Lk 4:30; Jn 8:59; 10:39).
It seems likely that Jesus concealed his true identity to heighten the impact when he broke bread, which would remind them of other times when they ate with him or saw him distribute food.
To some degree, we have a similar situation in Jn 20:14-16 and 21:4-7. It’s possible that their lack of recognition has the same psychological point of origin. However, the text doesn’t say that.
Moreover, the text distinguishes between facial recognition and voice recognition. The observers fail to recognize Christ on sight. It’s only when they hear him speak that they know who he is.
So that suggests a different explanation. It may be that Jesus had a more youthful appearance after he rose from the dead. He was in his early 30s when he died. He probably had a weathered complexion from spending so much time out of doors in the hot, dry, sunny climate.
If glorification restores us to a pristine condition, or something approximating a pristine condition, then that process would involve aging us up or down to an optimal age, depending on how old we were when we died. So their lack of recognition may be due to the fact that Jesus looked about 10-15 years younger, without a tan or facial lines.
One time I attended a wedding with my father. He hadn’t seen these relatives for over 20 years. When we went into the reception room, a cousin didn’t realize who he was until he spoke.
We also have a recognition scene in Acts 9:3ff. Although this might have antecedents in OT theophanies, the Transfiguration supplies the more immediate precedent (Lk 9:29). Once again, there’s a distinction between seeing and hearing, as well as psychologically disparate perceptions of the event (Acts 9:7; 22:9). God is controlling what the observers are permitted to see. And, once again, what we have a not case of sensing what is not there, but not sensing what is there.
We encounter this differential phenomenon elsewhere (Jn 12:28-29). The event is public, but its perception is private and variable.