Luke 24:13-35 - My Thoughts

Part 2: Luke 24:13 -35

The passage begins by centering us in time. It tells us that the events that are going to be described happened “that same day.” So we are still on the day of resurrection. It’s a little bit later, probably mid-afternoon. The passage centres around the experience of Cleopas and his companion, who is unnamed. Cleopas is (or was) apparently a disciple of Jesus; he was a part of the group that travelled with Jesus. So, for the sake of greater context for understanding the rest of the gospel story (and all of the Gospels) what we learn from this is that Jesus had more than 12 disciples, regardless of how often we speak of Jesus and the Twelve. Cleopas doesn’t appear to have been a disciple of great note. He is never mentioned in any other passage of Scripture; all that we know about him comes from this one story – and that isn’t very much. We know even less of Cleopas’s companion, who goes unnamed in this story and really adds little to the story, except perhaps in v.32, where it’s recorded that the two expressed their amazement to each other. We might wonder why this other disciple goes unnamed. “The other disciple” plays so little part in the story that if the reference were missing we really wouldn’t miss out on anything and the story could easily have been rewritten to exclude the reference. Again, that’s a little detail that gives a ring of authenticity to the story. There’s so little reason to include this detail that it almost certainly must have a basis in truth. Cleopas really was walking along the road with a companion. The most obvious reason that this other disciple goes unnamed is because the other disciples was probably a woman – perhaps Cleopas’s wife? Again, this was a society that didn’t place a high premium on females so the author probably saw no real need to name her.

The passage is another in a very familiar biblical motif: the journey. There are many journeys in Scripture, and the point of having the biblical story revolve so much around journeys is perhaps at least in part to remind us that faith is leading us somewhere: that faith is not an end in itself, but is a means to an end. The journey of Cleopas and his companion was a forlorn one. They “were looking sad” (v.17) Then, in v.21, Cleopas says “we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel.” The way the verb is constructed suggests that their hope is a thing of the past. They don’t understand everything that has happened – they’re particularly amazed by the story of angels and an empty tomb they had heard from “some women of our group” – but it hasn’t rekindled their hope. They “had” hope but they don’t have hope.

Part of the reason their hope is lost is because of their expectation of Jesus. They had believed him to be a prophet and possibly the promised Messiah (“the one who was going to redeem Israel.”) His death seemed to have put an end to any hope that his life might have made a difference, though. He was now apparently just another in a long list of prophets who had been killed and messianic claimants who had disappointed. The phrase “the one who was going to redeem Israel” is clearly a reference to the Jewish Messiah, but in the passage Cleopas doesn’t use the word. It’s only used by Jesus in speaking of himself (he refers to himself as “the Christ.”) Luke doesn’t stress this aspect of Jesus’ identity. Luke’s Gospel is, as far as we know, the only New Testament document written by a Gentile rather than a Jew. Generally speaking, this is reflected in various ways throughout Luke’s Gospel. The most interesting might be Luke’s genealogy of Jesus in Chapter 4, and how it compares to Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus. Matthew traces Jesus’ ancestry back only as far as Abraham. Abraham was the traditionally recognized founder of the Jewish religion. So for Matthew what was important was that Jesus stand in the genealogical line of Abraham – and especially of David, because that would give him a claim to be the Messiah; the Christ. Luke’s genealogy differs a bit in specifics, but most importantly, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus traces Jesus back to Adam – and, specifically, back to God. The claim that Jesus is the “Son of God” is clearly established, and by taking that claim all the way back to the beginning of creation, Luke is conferring on Jesus a truly universal calling. In Matthew’s Gospel (10:6-7) Jesus actually tells his disciples that they are not to take his message to the Gentiles (“Do not go among the Gentiles … Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.”) Later (Mt 15:24) he says of himself “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” Those instructions and words are never found in Luke’s Gospel, because to Luke Jesus was sent to all the world – Gentile and Jew alike.

Cleopas and his companion are described as travelling on the Road to Emmaus. We actually do not know where Emmaus was. This is the only time it’s mentioned in the Bible, although there are several references to places named “Emmaus” in other ancient writings. It was apparently not an unusual name for a community at the time. So we don’t know how far they’re going or how long it’s going to take them to get there. Their reason for being on the Road to Emmaus is probably connected to their loss of hope that I mentioned earlier. My guess is that Cleopas was from Emmaus, and – with his hope shattered – he’s simply going home. It’s a natural enough response. So I don’t think there’s anything particularly special or symbolic about Emmaus itself; it’s probably just Cleopas’s home town.

This now brings us to Jesus himself. There’s a similarity to how Mary Magdalene encountered Jesus here – in that Cleopas and his companion also don’t recognizes Jesus. It’s not clear why that is. Nothing in the text suggests that Jesus appeared as anything other than a normal human being. But there is no recognition and Cleopas goes so far as to share with Jesus the story of Jesus, and all that had happened in recent days. Jesus challenges their lack of understanding of all that had happened (“How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!”) And then the text goes on to tell us that Jesus explained the Scriptures to them, but apparently they still didn’t recognize him. It’s interesting that they finally recognized Jesus over the sharing of bread. (“When he was at table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him …”) The first thing we think of when we hear those words is surely Holy

Communion. For many centuries the classic text used as our model for Holy Communion has been Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 – but in the early church, the Road to Emmaus story was often used. The early church was developing its theology of sacraments, and the belief that Jesus was literally present in the breaking of the bread was an important aspect of Holy Communion. The Road to Emmaus story provided a concrete example of Jesus being “discovered” in the breaking of bread, and while we don’t use this passage as a scriptural basis for Holy Communion any more, we can certainly see its relevance to the developing understanding of the sacrament. It’s also interesting that the text suggests that Jesus simply “disappeared” once Cleopas and his companion recognized who he was. Some suggest that this implies that what happened was a “spiritual” experience of sorts – a vision, perhaps – although the story seems to present a very physical description of the risen Jesus, and there are other resurrection accounts which suggest that the risen Jesus could appear and disappear suddenly. The implication is that his “resurrection body” was a physical, tangible body but that it was of a different nature than a normal human body.

In the end, journeys are always about destinations. The goal is to get to where we’re going. The destination for Cleopas and his companion turned out to be a profession of faith. They were so awestruck by their encounter with Jesus that they turned around and went back to Jerusalem and were greeted by the news of Jesus’ resurrection. They also shared that they had encountered the risen Jesus. Being back in Jerusalem suggests that “they had hoped” was now a thing of the past. Their hope was rekindled. They might not yet have a full understanding of the scope of Jesus’ mission (and of the mission he had bequeathed to the disciples) Cleopas and his companion did understand that they had a mission. Going home to Emmaus was no longer an option. Going back to Jerusalem and rejoining the disciples to participate in whatever as coming was what they had to do.