C. The walk to Emmaus (24:13–35)
C. The walk to Emmaus (24:13–35)
This charming story is one of the best loved of all the resurrection narratives. There is something very moving in one of the Lord’s few appearances being given to these humble, quite unknown disciples. The story, moreover, has something so vivid about it that some hold that it must have come from one of the participants, perhaps even that Luke himself was the unnamed disciple. Others however regard this as no more than a proof of the literary artistry of the Evangelist.
13–14. That very day ties this story firmly in with the other happenings on the day of resurrection. Luke does not name the disciples of whom he writes, simply referring to two of them. He locates Emmaus with precision as 60 stadia from Jerusalem (about 7 miles; a stadion was 606¾ feet). This site cannot now be identified, for there are difficulties in the way of each suggested identification (see BAGD for suggestions and documentation). Luke does not define the subject of their conversation, but all these things must refer to the stories of the empty tomb and of the angels.
15–16. The verb drew near might refer to an approach from any direction, but as the two speak of Jesus as being from Jerusalem (18), the meaning must be that he overtook them as they journeyed. On a number of occasions the risen Jesus was not recognized at first (Matt. 28:17; John 20:14; 21:4); so now. On this occasion the implication appears to be that the disciples were somehow prevented from recognizing Jesus. It was in God’s providence that only later should they come to know who he was. Perhaps Luke wants us to gather, as Ford suggests, ‘that we cannot see the risen Christ, although he be walking with us, unless he wills to disclose himself ’.
17–18. Jesus’ question about the subject of their conversation caused them to stand still ‘looking glum’ (Hendriksen). Clearly they had been deeply moved by the turn of events. Cleopas, now introduced for the first time, is not known to us apart from this story. He saw the events of which he had just been speaking with his friends as common knowledge. The stranger, he thought, must be the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know these things. It was evidently a topic much on the lips of all in the capital city at that time.
19–20. To Jesus’ question What things? they gave an illuminating answer. They saw Jesus as a prophet. Their perception of his Person was limited. Yet in their hope for redemption (21) they must have seen him as more. At any rate they had been impressed both by his deeds and his words and they characterized them alike as mighty. They had seen the power of God in Jesus. But despite all this they went on to explain that the Jewish rulers had destroyed him. Notice that it is not the Romans but our chief priests and rulers who both delivered him up and crucified him. The reference to his being condemned to death implicates the Romans, but the chief blame is put squarely on the Jews.
21. The hope of the pair (and perhaps others; we may mean ‘we Christians’) had been that he was the one to redeem Israel ; they had seen him as the promised Deliverer. Redemption in the ancient world signified deliverance on payment of a price. It is inconceivable that God should pay a price to anyone, so where he is the subject the concept is necessarily modified. But close examination of such passages shows that they tend to convey the thought that God saves at cost (he may, for example, be pictured as putting forth a great effort in the interests of his own). Until Calvary no-one could know the extent of the cost. But the use of the concept of redemption expresses something of Israel’s hope and of the certainty that God cares.
22–24. The travellers single out what they have learnt from the women about the empty tomb and the vision of angels. They do not say who went to the tomb to check, but the plural, some of those who were with us, shows that Peter had not been alone. The women’s story had been verified, at least as far as the empty tomb went. But these two conclude sadly, him (there is emphasis on this word) they did not see. Apparently those who went to the tomb had hoped to see Jesus; but they did not, and this threw doubt on what the women had said.
25–26. Their words drew a rather sharp rebuke from their companion. Perhaps O foolish men is a trifle strong for anoētoi, and NEB may give the sense better with, ‘How dull you are!’ But the words certainly fall short of being a compliment, and show that the two had done less than might reasonably have been expected. Incidentally men may be more definite than the Greek demands, for the two could have been man and wife (cf. 17:34, where see note). Some have thought that Cleopas’s companion was Luke himself, others that he was called Simon. But we really do not know. Jesus goes on to point out that the root of the trouble was their failure to accept what is taught in Bible prophecy. The prophets had spoken plainly enough, but the minds of Cleopas and his friend had not been quick enough to grasp what was meant. The word all is probably important. They had no doubt seized on the prediction of the glory of the Messiah, but it was quite another thing to take to heart the prophecies that pointed to the darker side of his mission. But the dark side was there, in the prophecies. And this means that the passion was not simply a possibility that might or might not become actual, depending on the circumstances: it was necessary. Written in the prophets as it was, it had to happen. The Christ must suffer. But that is not the end of it. He must also enter into his glory. God is not defeated. He triumphs through the sufferings of his Christ.
27. Jesus began a systematic Bible study. Moses and all the prophets formed the starting-point, but he also went on to the things that referred to himself in all the scriptures. The picture we get is of the Old Testament as pointing to Jesus in all its parts. Luke gives no indication of which passages the Lord chose, but he makes it clear that the whole Old Testament was involved. We should perhaps understand this not as the selection of a number of proof-texts, but rather as showing that throughout the Old Testament a consistent divine purpose is worked out, a purpose that in the end meant and must mean the cross. The terribleness of sin is found throughout the Old Testament and so is the deep, deep love of God. In the end this combination made Calvary inevitable. The two had wrong ideas of what the Old Testament taught and thus they had wrong ideas about the cross.
28–29. As they neared their journey’s end it appeared that Jesus was going further. Had they not pressed him to stay, there is no reason for thinking that he would have done so. We must not interpret the words as pointing to a piece of play-acting. Without the invitation he would not have stayed. But the two had been more than impressed with his exposition of the Bible and accordingly they constrained him to stay with them. This probably means in the home of one of them. Some suggest that they went to an inn, but the only evidence is that Jesus took the initiative in breaking the bread (30), which the host would normally do. This scarcely seems adequate and it is much more likely that they went into a home. That it was toward evening meant that it was time to stop normal travelling. After dark the going would be difficult on unlit paths and there might be dangers from robbers or wild beasts. It was better to call a halt.
30–31. At table Jesus went through the motions familiar at the beginning of a Jewish meal, though normally they would have been performed by the host, not a guest. For the procedure see the note on 9:16–17. Bread was commonly broken at the prayer of thanksgiving before a meal. Some have seen here a reference to the breaking of bread in the communion service, but this seems far-fetched. It would have been a very curious communion service, broken off in the opening action and as far as we can see never completed. And it would have been quite out of place. In any case the two were not present at the Last Supper (cf. 22:14; Mark 14:17), so they could not have recalled Jesus’ actions then. Moreover there is no mention of the wine. However, something in the action awoke a chord, or perhaps they saw the nail-marks in Jesus’ hands for the first time. Or perhaps it was just God’s time. Their eyes were opened may mean that God chose this moment to make it clear that this was his Son. At any rate they recognized him. And as they did so he vanished of their sight.
32. The recognition that it was the Lord with whom they had walked explained to them what had happened on the journey. They remembered how their hearts had burnt within them. Clearly Jesus’ exposition had stirred them deeply. They speak of him as ‘opening’ the scriptures: when he spoke the meaning hidden in the words of the Bible became clear.
33–35. Their immediate reaction was to tell the other believers. They seem not to have completed their meal, for they left that same hour (which means ‘straight away’ rather than ‘within an hour’). The arguments they had used with Jesus about the lateness of the hour apparently did not weigh with them at all now. In Jerusalem they found the eleven and other disciples with them, though Luke does not say who they were. But they were full of the news of the resurrection, for the Lord has appeared to Simon! (cf. 1 Cor. 15:5). They had not been prepared to take the word of the women, but Simon was different. If he said he had seen Jesus, then The Lord has risen indeed. So Cleopas and his friends told of their walk with Jesus and of his becoming known in the breaking of the bread. The manner of his becoming known had clearly impressed them.