Third Sunday of Easter
Luke 24:13-35
Exegetical Notes by Brian Stoffregen
3 Easter A: Exegetical notes on Luke 24:13-35
In some ways, this lection is an intrusion in Year A. All of the other
gospel readings during the Season of Easter are from John. All of the
gospel readings during Pentecost are from Matthew. I don't know why
Luke shows up in the midst of John and Matthew, but it does.
On one hand, our text is out of sequence. The events recorded in this
text occurred on the day of resurrection -- not two weeks later as
people might assume by our use of it on 3 Easter.
On the other hand, this story was told and retold and recorded by Luke
for at least three reasons: (1) Jesus' death and resurrection fit
God's purpose as revealed in scripture; (2) The risen Jesus is present
in the breaking of bread; and (3) The risen Jesus is also absent from
the disciples.
This first appearance of the resurrected Jesus in Luke is unique,
although the longer ending of Mark has an appearance to two men
(16:12-13). Luke is presenting us with much more than just a
resurrection appearance. There are echoes of the Lord's unrecognized
appearance to Abraham and Sarah (Gn 18). There are connections with
worship -- word and sacrament.
There is a chiastic outline in this section:
A1 The two depart from Jerusalem (vv. 13-14)
B1 Jesus comes to them (v. 15)
C1 They don't recognize Jesus (v. 16)
C2 They recognize Jesus (v. 31a)
B2 Jesus disappears (v. 31b)
A2 The two return to Jerusalem (vv. 33-35)
The two disciples have no control over the middle four events. They
only control their leaving and return to Jerusalem -- but what a
contrast in those two trips: A slow, sad, hopeless trip from Jerusalem
to Emmaus (wherever that may be) and a quick, joyful, hopeful trip
from Emmaus to Jerusalem. The seven miles (60 stadia) back to
Jerusalem was a lot shorter with their "happy feet ".
Our text contains two scenes: on the road with (the unrecognized)
Jesus and at table with Jesus.
ON THE ROAD WITH JESUS
V. 16 with the passive "kept" (_ekratounto_) raises the question, "Who
or what kept them from recognizing Jesus?" Schweizer (_The Gospel
According to Luke_) suggests: "What stands in the way of their faith
is their belief in an image of Christ that does not describe Jesus"
[p. 373]. Could our expectations of Jesus blind us to the real Jesus?
Could it be a divine passive? Could it be God that kept them from
seeing Jesus -- if so, then God created the situation where Jesus
could explain scriptures to them. Tannehill (_The Narrative Unity of
Luke/Acts_) combines the divine and human sources of "blindness" when
he writes: "God holds human eyes in the sense that God's ways
necessarily appear meaningless to humans who understand events in
terms of their own purposes and ways of achieving them. A new vision
of how God works salvation in the world must be granted to the
disciples before a crucified and risen Messiah can be meaningful for
them" [p. 282].
God may use our inadequate or narrow understandings to blind us so
that God might give us a new vision of God's ways in the world with
its related understanding of scripture. Remember that Saul was a very
devout and committed believer in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
before he was blinded by the light of Jesus. Could his deeply held,
devout Jewish beliefs have kept him from seeing the risen Jesus
before? If so, what might that imply about us? Whatever deeply held
beliefs that we have, we, perhaps, should take less seriously; and
recognize that our faith comes as a gift that we can only humbly
accept -- not proudfully claim.
I wonder if the reason they were in Jerusalem might have been to
attend the "funeral service" for Jesus. Remember that four days after
Lazarus' death, there were still crowds of Jews weeping and mourning
with his family over his death and burial (John 11). That might
explain the reason they were talking about the events of the past
three days with such a sad look (v. 17).
V. 18 presents quite an ironic situation. The two disciples nearly
rebuke Jesus for not knowing (_ginosko_) what's been going on in these
days. Yet, we know that they are the ones who really don't know
(_epiginosko_ v. 16 = "recognize") what's going on. Their "lack of
seeing" involves more than comprehending the resurrected Jesus among
them, but also their understanding of the things that have been going
on (vv. 19b-24) and their relationship to scriptures (vv. 25-27).
Their report about what has been happening is partially true. "Jesus
of Nazareth was a prophet mighty and deed and word before God and all
the people" (v. 19).
Jesus referred to himself as a prophet, but in terms of his rejection
at Nazareth (4:24); and his death in Jerusalem (13:33). Jesus stresses
the persecution of the prophets, which his followers will also face
(6:23). Being a "prophet" for Jesus in Luke means rejection,
persecution, and death, which is what happened to Jesus.
For the people, they refer to Jesus as a great prophet after raising
the widow's son (7:16) -- a great act of miraculous power. It is
likely they expected some great miracle from this prophet for the
"redemption of Israel" (v. 21). As Tannehill (_Luke_) writes: "They do
not make a connection between Jesus' role as prophet and his violent
death" [p. 353]. I would also add that they don't make a connection
between Jesus' role as redeemer and his violent death.
The "redemption of Israel" presents a problem. Carl Braaten in his
introduction to Pinchas Lapide's book _The Resurrection of Jesus: A
Jewish Perspective_, quotes other books of Lapide's:
Christianity is a who-religion, Judaism a what-religion. Or, if you
will, Judaism is a religion of redemption; Christianity one with a
redeemer. For you Christians what is important is the redeemer, the
king; for us it is the kingdom. We Jews know -- under God -- of a
kingdom of heaven also, without a Savior-King; but we do not know a
Savior-King with the kingdom already having come. Every morning
television and the press confirm with terrible clarity that this
world is not yet redeemed. [from _Jesus im Widerstreit_, quoted on
p. 14]
and "If it is true that the Messiah of which our ancient prophets
spoke has already come, how then do you explain the present state of
the world?" [from _Israelis, Jews and Jesus_, quoted on p. 26]
How do we proclaim the Redeemer-having-come without seeing redemption
of Israel (or the redemption of the whole world)? Stated more
personally, how do we proclaim the Redemer-having-come through the
changes he makes in our lives?
First of all, the main problem expressed by the two disciples is the
loss of hope (v. 21). The imperfect of hope (_elpizomen_) implies that
they "were hoping" or "kept hoping" in the past. The crucifixion of
Jesus was a loss of hope. The resurrection of Jesus restores hope. He
is no longer dead. However, note that just the appearance of the risen
Jesus was not enough to restore faith and hope -- they don't even know
who he is.
Secondly, Jesus' interpretation of scriptures points to a new
understand of redemption -- one that involves a suffering Messiah (v.
26). NOTE the irony that suffering is necessary for the Messiah "to
enter into his glory". God's ways are often found in their opposites.
Tannehill (_The Narrative Unity of Luke/Acts_) says:
God's action is perceived especially in those situations and
experiences where God's saving purpose surprises, because it is
quite contrary to human plans and expectations. These experiences
emphasize the continuing tension between divine action and human
expectation. These experiences are sufficiently important in the
plot to describe the God of Luke-Acts as the God who works by irony.
The disciples on the road to Emmaus are about to discover that they
are the happy "victims" of the God of irony. [pp. 283-4]
Thirdly, I think that we continue to struggle with the lack of
redemption in our world and its challenge to our faith and hope. When
I first wrote these notes there was a 15-year-old boy in town with
cancer. The cure rate for his type of cancer is 75%. Our prayer chain,
and many others, had been praying for him for months. They all
expected the prayers and the treatments to work so that this young man
might live a normal life-span. They didn't. The prayers changed to
asking that the upcoming death would not be painful. Is that part of
the tension between divine action and our human expectations? While we
perhaps can understand God's way of working through the suffering and
death of Jesus, it's harder when it is the suffering and death of
children.
Three years later when I revised these notes, there were bombs falling
in Yugoslavia. Where is our hope in all of this? Is it possible to
talk about redemption in the midst of a war?
After another three years, we were involved in our "war against
terrorism". There was war between Israel and Palestine. These are
still going on.
Three years later – and it continues to our day – we are fighting in
Iraq and Afghanistan. How do we keep hope alive when peace seems to be
an impossible goal for our planet? Did Jesus' coming make any
difference in the global scope of things?
In the midst of our grieving and hopelessness -- or of our wealth and
prosperity, it can still be difficult to recognize the risen Jesus in
our midst. It can still be difficult to find the proper understanding
of scriptures. But Jesus doesn't give up on disciples who are "foolish
and slow of heart to believe" (v. 25). As I will say more below, all
of these tragedies also point out the absence of Jesus.
This statement about being slow to believe comes right after they
admit that they know the report from the women that at the tomb "they
did not find the body" and that "they had seen a vision of angels who
said that he was alive" and others (probably men) attested their
report about the empty tomb. These two disciples had heard and knew
the right words about the resurrection, but those words hadn't
produced a faith that changed their lives.
As much as we have stressed the power of the Word to produce faith
(Romans 10:17), it doesn't seemed to have been sufficient in this
case -- neither the word from the angels through the women, nor the
word from God through scriptures. Something more was needed.
AT THE TABLE WITH JESUS
One way these two scenes are connected is by the two "openings"
reported in our lesson. The *opening* of their eyes (v. 31) so that
they can *recognize* (_epiginosko_) Jesus in their midst. This took
place at the meal. The *opening* of scriptures that "burned in their
hearts" (v. 32). This took place when he spoke to them on the
road/way -- but was recognized only with hindsight.
Jesus, the guest, became the host doing the same actions as twice
before -- in comparing the Greek words there us much similarity:
24:30
22:19 9:16
taking
labon
labon labon de
the (5) bread ton arton
ton arton tous pente artous . . .
blessing (them) eulogesen
eucharisesas eulogesen autous
breaking
klasas
eklasen kataklasen
giving
epedidou edoken
edidou
to them (disciples) autois
autois tois mathetais
Should we assume that these two disciples were at one or both of these
events and that they recognized Jesus through these familiar actions?
Should we assume that these two disciples were not at either event and
that the "breaking of bread" is "eye-opening" all by itself -- the
power of the sacramental meal? If they were not at the earlier feeding
events, can we assume that the readers of Luke would recognize the
words and actions from their participation in the Eucharist?
NOTE that both of the previous "breaking bread" events also included
teaching. Jesus speaks to the crowd about the kingdom of God (9:11).
Unique to Luke, in the upper room, following the meal, Jesus teaches
the disciples (22:24-38).
If eating together is a sign of fellowship, Jesus eating with these
two disciples (and the others in 24:42-43) restores the fellowship
broken by death -- and/or their misunderstanding of Jesus and of
scriptures and of God's ways in the world.
NOTE that proper understanding (opened eyes) was not required before
having table fellowship with Jesus! It came as a result of the shared
meal! What might this imply about "full communion" with other
Christians? Should we wait until we have enough understanding and
agreement with other before "eating" together? Or should we just
celebrate the sacrament together and expect God to work in our lives
to help us "see" the com-*union* that has been given? What about
communing children? How much understanding needs to come first? Should
sharing the meal come first and intellectual understanding of all the
benefits of the sacrament come later?
THE ABSENCE OF JESUS
The only "supernatural" phenomenon seen in Jesus is his disappearance.
Otherwise he was just another traveler on the road. I'd promised
further comments about Jesus' absence. Here they come. Just this
morning I read a chapter in _Loving Jesus_, by Mark Allan Powell,
called "Presence and Absence." He first writes about experiencing the
presence of Jesus: "Authentic Christianity is always a reality to be
experienced, not just a collection of facts or doctrines to be learned
and believed" (p. 52).
And, "The thing is, we don't just admire Jesus: we claim that he is
still alive and that we are in an ongoing, living relationship with
him" (p. 53).
He summarizes the "real presence" of Jesus as "a reality capable of
surprising us" (p. 53) -- something that certainly happened to the two
on the road.
He begins the second part of the chapter with:
The Bible teaches that while Jesus may remain present with us in all
of the ways we have described, he is no longer with us as he once
was, and he is not now with us as he will be. Living with the
ambiguity of recognizing this "absence of Jesus" even when
appreciating his continuing presence holds an important key for
spiritual formation. (p. 54)
A page later he offers a metaphor:
Somebody once asked me, "What does it _feel like_ to be a
Christian?" That seemed like an odd question, but I tried to answer.
I said, "It feels like being in love with someone who has gone
away." They said, "That can't be very pleasant." Well, no, I don't
think it's supposed to be _pleasant_, but it is pretty powerful. I
am in love with my wife, and when she is gone, I think about her
constantly. I perk up at any news of her and I am energized by the
slightest connection (a letter, a phone call). That's what being a
Christian "feels like." Of course, it is a _confident_ sadness, and
we'll get to more of what that means in the next few chapters, but
for now let's just admit this much: we love Jesus as a bride loves
her groom, but our bridegroom has been taken away from us, and that
makes us sad. The love can be real and powerful and overwhelming,
but the absence is real too. And, sometimes, it's just hard. (p. 55,
italics in original)
He quotes Luke 22:15-16, 18, 19; Matthew 26:29; 1 Corinthians 11:26
and notes that they all "call attention to the ways in which Jesus
will _not be present_ with his disciples when they gather to eat this
meal. ... We know that he is risen, but when we eat this meal -- a
meal that he once shared with us when he was here on earth and will
someday share with us again in the kingdom -- we _notice his absence_
and are more aware of his death than we are of his resurrection.
That's how it will be, the Bible says, for people proclaiming his
death 'until he comes'." (p. 57).
Using another image:
In the liturgies of many churches, Holy Communion is celebrated
explicitly as "a foretaste of the feast to come." the purpose of a
foretaste is not to satisfy one's hunger but to make one long for
the feast. It seems to me that the more often Christians take
Communion, the more impatient they should become. I've been taking
Communion almost weekly for about forty years now and my attitude is
becoming "Enough with the appetizers! I want the feast!" Of course,
we must be grateful for what we have. Grateful, but _not_ satisfied!
One purpose of Communion is to feed our impatience, simultaneously
reminding us of our Lord's absence and allowing us to experience
just enough of his presence to increase this longing in our souls.
(p. 58)
I don't know about the rest of you, but I had always wondered about
the disappearing Jesus in our text. We, Lutherans, (and others) often
stress the "Real Presence" of Christ in the sacrament. The text
reminds us that it is also a disappearing presence -- perhaps an even
more painful event than the crucifixion -- unexpected and
inexpressible hope and joy is restored only to have it fade away
again.
I don't think that I can look at this text again and only talk about
the presence of the risen Christ in the sacrament. We also experience
his absence. He is present, but not as intimately as he once was with
his disciples. He is present, but we do not see him as he is (1 John
3:2) or know him as fully as he knows us (1 Corinthians 13:12).
THE DISCIPLES' RESPONSE
The disciple's immediate response after their eyes have been opened is
to go and tell others what had happened to them. However, before they
have a chance to speak, they have to hear about the appearance to
Peter. There is a time to speak and a time to listen. Sometimes
resurrection enthusiasm needs some damping. Similarly, as soon as they
recognize that it is Jesus who is with them, he disappears. Just when
we think we've got Jesus all figured out -- he pulls a new trick.
The two can only report what Jesus did. They can't bring Jesus with
them. They can't *make* him appear before the others. He is not at
their disposal. However, there are two parts to their report (v.
35) -- which continue to be at our disposal:
(1) What happened on the road/way = their hearts were burning within
them as Jesus spoke to them and as he opened to them the scriptures
(v. 32) -- THE WORD -- with Jesus' life, suffering, death, and
resurrection as the key to properly understanding it;
(2) How he was made known (_ginosko_) to them in the breaking of
bread -- the means by which their eyes were opened (v. 31) -- THE
MEAL.
In previous years, I concluded my thoughts with: I'm of the opinion
that the continued celebration of the breaking of bread by the early
church was motivated primarily by this (and the other) accounts of the
resurrected Jesus eating with the disciples, rather than the upper
room event. This also supports our understanding that the meal brings
the "real presence" of the risen Jesus to those eating and drinking.
This year I also note that the meal also brings a sense of the absence
of Jesus in the world. Powell ends the chapter, "[W]e are in love with
a bridegroom who has gone away" (p. 59). The meal both brings Jesus to
us and leaves us longing for Jesus.
Brian Stoffregen
Faith Lutheran Church, 2215 S 8th Ave., Yuma, AZ 85364
e-mail: brian.stoffregen@gmail.com