An
The Journey to Emmaus in Luke 24:13-31
Evan Howe
RL 400
Dr. McGinn
13 Nov. 02
The story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus has been a popular concentration for much biblical study. That this is the case should be no small source of surprise since this event is but one of three post-resurrection accounts given in Luke’s Gospel. It is unique to the Gospels because it goes into a great deal more depth than any of the others to show that Jesus appeared to people other than the inner circle of disciples. Mark 16:12-13 is the only extant parallel. The key to understanding this pericope, then, is the distinct mindset coming from the author of Luke. The question that first comes to mind is “what does this story contain that Luke finds so important?” The Emmaus story has inspired a number of different theological reflections. These range from studies on the themes of journey,[1] liturgy,[2] ecumenism,[3] art,[4] table fellowship,[5] revelation,[6] and linguistic analysis.[7] The amazing experience of the Emmaus story is that it is able to speak in so many different ways to a broad spectrum of interests. What inspires this article, however, is the question listed above: what is significant about this story when compared to the other post-resurrection stories in the Gospels and in Luke particularly?
In the Gospel of Luke, there appear three different post-resurrection stories: 24:1-12, 24:13-35, and 24:36-49. The Emmaus story is found as the second in this series of three accounts. The common thread running between each of these stories is recognising Christ. Each time, there is a different audience, Christ is made present, and the audience recognises Christ. The Emmaus story is notable for the way that it pairs explaining the prophets with sharing in the breaking of the bread. It indeed seems to be Luke’s intent to show how these two events are necessary for the disciples coming to recognise Christ. The Emmaus story is also the only one of the three accounts that gives detail to the events immediately preceding the witness’ recognition. In the other two accounts, much less time is spent on the work of revelation. The central verb used to describe the revelation to the disciples in the Emmaus account is dianoicomai. The verb is a passive verb meaning “they were opened” (referring to their eyes). The corresponding action to this verb of revelation is kratwmai, again, a passive verb referring to their eyes. These verbs, used to set up the tension in such detail in this story, should lead to some sort of an understanding about the mindset of the author. While the other areas of theological reflection have been very helpful applications of the message of Emmaus, this passage holds out an even more important message about the nature of Christ and the source of revelation. This study will focus on understanding the way words (and silence) are being used here, which will offer an interesting insight into a possible worldview being used for Luke’s writing. To better understand the unique features of the Emmaus story as well as the features it shares with the other two stories which immediately precede and follow it, it is important to examine the three Lukan post-resurrection accounts.
Structural Considerations
The first of these is the appearance of Jesus to the women in Luke 24:1-12. In this account, the women never experience a direct revelation of Christ. Rather, they encounter two “men in dazzling robes” who tell the women not to be surprised. The men make reference to the writings of the prophets by way of explanation. The women take this message from the men and go forth to tell the eleven remaining disciples and those who were with them about what they had experienced. Thus, the three steps are that the women (1) experience the lack of Jesus (i.e. cannot find him in the tomb), (2) meet strangers who refer to Jesus’ words, and (3) go forth to spread the news of their experience to the followers of Jesus. These three elements will be found in various forms in each of the other two stories as well.
The Emmaus encounter follows indeed a very similar form. It begins with two disciples experiencing (talking about) the loss of Jesus, though they are not actively seeking Jesus. The not seeking Jesus is because “they understand, according to the world’s logic, that Jesus’ death means the apparent end of his messianic claims, as well as their own hopes.”[8] What is more, the disciples had fallen to arguing about Jesus: “Jesus had become the subject of a dispute; but between missionaries disputes are unacceptable.”[9] This initial dispute is interrupted by them meeting a stranger, who acts surprised at their state of despair. He makes reference to the prophets and then breaks bread with them at their house. Recognising Christ, their “eyes are opened” and they rush out to spread the news about the experience they had just had. Again, the steps that appear to mark this passage is that the disciples experience a lack of Jesus, encounter a stranger who talks to them about the prophets, and go forth to spread the news about their experience. Unique to this story are two elements. The first of these is that Jesus breaks bread before they come to recognise him as the Christ. As a contrast, in the first story, the announcement of the men in dazzling garments is enough to spur the women on to tell about their experiences. The second unique element is the number of events that pass between the disciples encountering the stranger and recognising Christ. The importance of these elements will be discussed later.
The third post-resurrection account occurs with the gathered disciples. In this account, Jesus appears to the disciples and shows them his wounds. The disciples recognise him, and he explains the words of the prophets to them. The disciples are, in the end of this account, aware of the experience that they are having. The same three steps appear here as well: the disciples experience the lack of Jesus, they recognise Jesus and hear about the words of the prophets, and they recognise that they are sharing an experience of Christ (therefore, there is no need to tell the disciples and those with them about what they have experienced). Here, the words of Jesus and the recognition of Christ appear to be in a reversed order. It is not the words that have made them realise who was in their midst, but a physical recognition of him.
With
regard to these three stories, then, the common elements are an absence of
Jesus, a proclamation of the words of the prophets and Jesus, a recognition of
Christ, and a re-telling of the events to the disciples and those with them. The unique feature to the Emmaus story,
though, (which offers a suggestion to the significant issue in this pericope)
is the amount of detail involved in the explanation of the scriptures and the
breaking of the bread. Unlike the other
stories, the showing of a single sign is not enough to reveal Christ. Luke is demonstrating the important
combination of at least two different elements that explain the ministry of
Jesus in order to recognise the risen Christ.
This story takes a full fourteen verses to explain the elements going
into Christ’s revelation (24:17-30) compared to only three (24:5-7, 38-40) in
the other two stories. This story on the
road to Emmaus is also unique for the way that it makes explicit the fact that
the disciples could not see what was right in front of them “oi de ofqalmoi autwn
ekratounto tou mh epignwnai auton.[10]” (v. 16)
Sources
In
this particular story, I have indicated above that I am isolating those events
that are unique to this story as the ones that Luke is trying to make
significant. The uniqueness of this
passage extends beyond the scope of just the writings of Luke. In Mark, one may find evidence of a very
brief version of this same story (Mk
Rhetorical Technique
The first note about Luke’s writing style is that he is the only one of the Gospel writers who appears knowledgeable in classical Greek writing styles. In the introductions of both volumes of the Luke-Acts set, Luke has written in a style characteristic of Greek historians.[15] In fact, the method used by Luke in this story gives evidence of knowledge of the work of authors such as Sophocles and Homer.[16] This experience with classical literature seems to have also given Luke a sense of rhetorical pattern and balance in his writing. Luke, in various places throughout his Gospel, places sets of three stories, each with a slight variation used to illustrate the particular theme.[17] In the post-resurrection accounts, the reader finds another set of these three stories, combined in their theme, yet each having a slightly different focus. This writing technique is being used by Luke to indicate the important sections of a particular passage.
What, then, was the source of the blindness from which the disciples were suffering (since this is one of the unique features to this pericope)? What occurred in the following actions that healed them of their blindness or “opened their eyes?” (v. 31) The two events that occur between the eyes of the disciples being closed and the disciples recognising Christ are the telling of the writings of the prophets and the breaking of the bread with Jesus as host. H Hornik and M Parsons describe these events as “the key to this passage,”[18] though I will suggest shortly that these events are more the key to the key to this passage.[19] Both of these actions were performed frequently by Jesus throughout the years of his ministry. Like John the Baptist before him, Jesus relied upon preaching to all sizes of groups of people in order to spread his message. Jesus’ skill was in the ability to explain his message to a group of people. He was able to explain, through parables and challenges, the way in which God tied into their daily lives.
Table
fellowship, likewise, (or breaking the bread as Luke was wont to describe it)
was common for Jesus. Arthur Just goes
into a detailed discussion on the ways in which table fellowship appear in the
Gospel of Luke. He suggests that the
action of breaking the bread with the disciples on the road to Emmaus is a
continuation of Jesus’ earlier ministry.[20] Hornik and Parsons point out that “the
gestures of Jesus in Emmaus recall his similar actions at earlier meals—the
feeding of the multitude (Luke
Indeed, the acts preceding the recognition by the disciples are highly detailed. This passage, more than the other two, is attempting to describe the process of coming to see. This “task of seeing clearly is an exceedingly difficult undertaking, one that requires constant practice.”[24] The amount of time spent on this task suggests that it is meant to be a central theme of this pericope. The recognition itself is “the climax of the story”[25] that resolves this question about the nature of revelation.
Luke’s Audience
The writing technique of Luke implies something about his audience as well as himself. Namely, the audience to which Luke was writing was also familiar with the formal Greek structures and literary allusions being employed by Luke.[26] This technique by Luke would have appealed to an audience that would be unsatisfied with the rougher styles of writing found in the other Gospels.[27] Through the previous two points it has been postulated that Luke’s audience was fairly well educated. This community would have been aware of, and looking for, the very sort of subtle changes used by Luke in composing this set of three post-resurrection account.
The sort of audience that is indicated by Luke’s writing style also suggests a couple of other points that help to understand the original line of communication existing between the Lukan writer and reader. Luke’s audience seems to be drawn from largely Gentiles who were not unfamiliar with the practices and teachings of the Jewish synagogues.[28] This is indicated by, and explains, why Luke does not frequently appeal to the particular teachings of Judaism upon which Jesus is building. Also, this audience seems to be familiar with the teachings of Jesus.[29] Luke makes mention in his introduction (1:1-4) that his work is not original. Also, the reference to Jesus’ preaching on the road to Emmaus (24:26-27) does not review the specifics of the discourse. The audience’s familiarity with both Christianity and Judaism helps to explain the particular gaps that Luke did deem it to be necessary to fill in writing this account.
A point made by Robert Karris regarding the motivation for Luke to write this passage ties in the connection that Luke’s audience would have with the Jewish Synagogues.[30] If the audience of Luke’s Gospel had been acquainted with the beliefs of Judaism, they would have been aware of the Jewish belief of being the Promised People. However, when this is set beside parables by Luke,[31] Luke’s audience could have seen God’s shift away from the original Promised People of Israel. Luke would have needed to reassure his audience of Jesus’ continued presence despite his death.[32]
To the disciples’ own great astonishment, they did not immediately recognise the person who was present to them: they remarked to themselves “were not our hearts burning within us while he spoke to us on the way and opened the scriptures to us?” (Luke 24:32) The author of Luke seems to be depicting at this point that there was, in retrospect, a sentiment, present with the disciples over a period of time as they experienced the words and actions of Christ. They had not simply felt such a burning and been made to realise the truth of the person who had appeared before them. Rather, they felt the burning but did not understand what it meant until after Jesus had broken bread with them. The initial burning not being enough to make the disciples aware of Christ’s presence before them is indicative of this passage’s tension. This tension arose from the fact that the disciples could desire to see Christ, feel the draw of Christ’s words, and yet not recognise that the person before them was the Christ. This can lead to a reading of the passage from one of two different perspectives, either the disciples were prevented from recognising Christ, or Christ’s actions allowed them to recognise Christ. The difference is this: that which was impeding the disciples in their recognition could either be considered something that had been added to them (impeding them from recognising Christ until that element had been removed) or something that had been lacking from them (preventing them from recognising Christ until that element had been added).
Rhetorical Technique Revisited
An overview of the grammar of the two phrases will be helpful in understanding how the various elements relate to each other:
oi de ofqalmoi autwn ekratounto tou mh epignwnai
auton
autwn de dianoicqhsan oi ofqalmoi kai epegnwsan
auton
The eyes of them were held that they might not know him
Of them were opened the eyes and they knew him
There is a clear parallel between these two phrases.[33] In the first half, there is a chiasmus involving the eyes and the action that they receive.[34] The second half of each phrase shows a slightly different grammatical structure (an articular infinitive in the first case and an independent clause in the second), but the shared vocabulary points to the parallel nature of these phrases.[35]
The main verbs in both these phrases are in the passive voice. The silence here is notable. Luke has not listed an agent for these verbs. If they were recast in the active voice, their silence would scream forth, begging for a subject: ? closed their eyes, ? opened their eyes. How is one supposed to fill in this blank that has been created here?
The most traditional construal of this passive usage is to supply God as the agent acting on the eyes. The authors supporting this view are clearly in the majority.[36] These authors seem to take it as a matter of course that God would be an agent for this action. Indeed, there is precedent for the usage of the passive in order to “avoid the divine name”[37] within the larger context of The New Testament and Luke specifically. I, however, will attempt to crack open the question of agency in this passage and provide an agent that might give a new and deeper meaning to the events on the road to Emmaus. Jan Wojcik is helpful in pointing out that both Gnostic and Orthodox interpreters of this passage have “imagined certain agents” to complement these verbs.[38] The variety of these agents that Wojcik mentions is helpful in seeing that various traditions of understanding exist regarding these verbs. By Gnostic authors they were used to further mystify the passage that they were attempting to explain. He also points out that Orthodox interpreters had also raised the question of agency. Thus it is that there is indeed a wealth of judgements that has been passed on these verbs. Most of the contemporary literature, noted above, has passed over the depth of meaning that can be, and has been, drawn from this question.
The question of agency for these verbs is significant both for Nortje[39] and Wojnik. “Perhaps the riddle of this passive verb holds a key to interpreting this episode.”[40] Since there is the tight parallel structure in the use of both verbs, as described earlier, it is most likely that the agent omitted in each case shares some connection. As I mentioned above, the process of coming to see can be approached from two directions: either some impediment has been removed from the disciples’ eyes, or some aid to vision has been added. The first of these possibilities is the basis for the claim that a divine agent is responsible for their blindness. In this case, something positive, the hand of God, has been removed. The interpretation that I will attempt looks at the passage from the other direction, i.e. something negative, a lack, has been removed; therefore something positive has come to fill the initial negative void. This change of perspective is something like an optical illusion in which the viewer can see either a candlestick or two faces. The question is whether the eyes come to focus on the darkened areas or on the lighter areas.[41]
The question that follows in order to determine the nature of this void, filled by the experiences of the disciples, is to examine the elements that have come to the disciples between the indicated point of blindness and vision. As discussed above, these elements can most concisely be described by hearing the word and experiencing table fellowship. Is it possible that these events can constitute the positive addition that mediates the disciples achieving a clearer vision?[42] The experiences of the stranger’s/Jesus’ preaching and table fellowship are forms of knowledge that can fill the initial void that the disciples were experiencing.
That
knowledge can be the resolving power for the blindness is seen by the
traditional figurative use of the eyes.
Just lists a number of occurrences of eyes in Luke (
On Matters of Form
The narrative technique that Luke uses in this pericope builds a tension for the audience, both contemporary and original. This tension that Luke is attempting to create is similar to the techniques used by many classical authors. Luke casts this story in such a way that the reader is an omniscient third party.[47] From the point of view of the narrator, beside whom the audience is standing, the irony of the situation becomes immediately apparent. [48] The Emmaus disciples claim that Jesus is ignorant (24:18), thereby setting up the theme that will carry through the rest of the passage (ignorance-knowledge).
This is as a story demonstrating a historical encounter with Christ, but for the sake of meaning for the contemporary audience it is interpreted for its metaphorical value. “Legend is a matter of literary form and is not an expression of historical value.”[49] An historical understanding of this passage would help us to understand the way that a particular author or community understood the passage. The method being applied here, then, does not disregard the historical nature of scripture, but places a greater value upon the metaphors that are being suggested. “The actual structure of the Emmaus story is the vehicle for Luke’s theological purpose, recapitulating in this final chapter the narrative style of the entire Gospel.”[50] In this story, one sees the role that Christ’s teaching plays in the Christian community. Theological purposes can either be for a particular community, or, if it is to be more broadly descriptive of truth, for the community of believers across a wide span of time. “One of the crucial, yet underdeveloped functions of the worshipping community is to name and gather together the stories of ongoing encounters with the resurrected one.”[51] The writing style of Luke made rich use of metaphors in the specific form of parable. Luke’s writing has the most parables of the four Gospels, and his have a unique pattern to them. Some of these characteristics, as used of parables by Luke, are an earlier point of crisis, a strong sense of realism, and mention of food and journey.[52] All of these characteristics are present in the Emmaus story. Thus, Luke has written another parable into his Gospel. This time, the parable is not directly set off from the greater narrative, yet is set in it. This parable tells about Jesus’ presence, the role of faith, and the role of knowledge. Only a narrow set of these themes have been able to be discussed here.
Reader Response
It is not the goal of this passage, however, “to provide another objective proof for the resurrection of Jesus.”[53] By examining the method by which the disciples came to see Jesus among them, one gains an appreciation for who Christ is. The words of the prophets and the memory of Jesus’ ministry made Christ present to the disciples. Christ, then, is to be recognised by the content of scripture, but not by this alone. Luke shows that the actions of Jesus at the house at Emmaus were necessary for identifying the divine one in their midst.
“Luke says that words do not lead anyone to recognize the Risen Lord. In fact, for Luke the ability to recognize a hungry person is the precondition for recognizing the Risen Lord.”[54] The actions that Jesus performed at the table, then, add to the meaning derived from the exposition of the scriptures pointing to the kerygma. These actions are the reclining at table and the blessing and breaking of bread. Here, historical scholarship is helpful in drawing out the meaning of these actions. What did Luke suggest when he described Jesus performing these actions? As was suggested in the beginning of this paper, these actions indicated for Luke a connection to the rest of Jesus’ ministry. As Saunders believes in the above reference, these actions indicate “a hungry person.” The precise understanding of the content of these events is not described here.[55] Rather, it is the fact that they are necessary for the recognition of Christ. The experience of the ministry of Christ combined with the words describing this ministry will aid one in recognising Christ. They describe Christ through a collection of knowledge.
The themes of blindness and sight expressed throughout the Lukan writings come into greater focus (through increased knowledge) in such a way that the reader can see how knowledge is at the centre of this process. Through an increase of experiences, filled in with the words of others’ experiences, eyes can be opened. The deeper meaning that Luke is attempting to express here is the necessity of experience for knowledge and, therefore, for revelation. Nortje recognises that one of the central tools to her method “in its interpretation of the Bible is experience.”[56] This sort of a technique is greatly supported and expanded by the insights gained through the Emmaus story if the above conclusions are correct. Indeed, the sharing of experiences with the Lukan author informs my own experiences and leads to my eyes being opened to new recognitions of Christ.
The above points also indicate a concept of the resurrection and what the experience of that might mean. Since the recognition of Christ is based on a connection drawn with the teaching and actions of Jesus’ ministry, there is a dynamic possibility for the continued presence of Christ in the midst of the community of believers. The community of believers shares the words of the prophets as well as the experiences of Jesus’ earthly ministry. These words correspond to the preaching of Jesus along the road to Emmaus. The individual experiences that go along with Christian interaction look for the connections with the words of scripture. Where these connections are found, the moment of “opening” occurs. When this knowing or opening of eyes happens in the midst of the community of believers, Christ is made present in those experiences. This notion of Christ present-and-alive-among-us is an experience of the resurrected Christ. The resurrection, then, is seen through this exposition of Luke’s writings as more than a historical event immediately following the crucifixion. It is even applicable beyond the repeated historical event of recognising Christ’s presence. The resurrection is indicated as the eternal existence of Christ outside of any particular formulation of Jesus’ divine ministry.
The historical reapplication of these concepts come back into play by recognising that Christ is present to us through experiencing the actions of others around us. When we hear the words that describe Christ and experience the actions of members of our community, we are able to “see,” in the Lukan sense, the presence of Christ. Other people can be Christ for us. This is not to say that they are identified with the second person of the Trinity, but rather that their actions become the catalyst by which that person is seen. It is as if Christ rises up between me and the one who initiates the experience. Likewise, it is possible to be Christ for another person. Again, this does not indicate some sort of transformation to a divine being, but, rather, it is a possibility to be the source of the action that will lead another person to “experience” the resurrection and see Christ. This experience can be, like viewing a painting of this scene, an invitation to “the viewer to his or her own moment of epiphany.”[57]
It is a potential question, then, who the originator of the resurrection experience was on the road to Emmaus. Who drove the disciples to see Christ in their midst? One thing becomes clear though: the disciples had had an experience of Christ. Once their blindness had been healed they were “equipped to be, not sceptics, but missionaries.”[58] The tension that they had felt was resolved once the centre of this tension appeared before them. Christ was able to give them the confidence that allowed them to move on with their ministry.
Bibliography
Berzonsky, Vladimir, “To Emmaus, with
Jesus between Us,”
(1994), 177-199.
Blass, F.
and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian
Literature,
Brunk, George, “Journey to Emmaus : A
Study in Critical Methodology,” pages 203-222 in
Essays on Biblical Interpretation, Elkhart, In : Institute of Mennonite Studies, 1984.
Combet-Galland, Corina and Francoise
Smyth-Florentin, “Le pain qui
fait lever les Ecritures :
Emmaus,
Luc 24/13-35,” Etudes Theologiques et
Religieuses, 68:3 (1993), 323-332.
Delzant,
Antoine, “Les disciples d'Emmaus (Luc 24:13-35),” Recherches
de Science Religieuse,
73:2 (1985), 177-186.
Derrett, J Duncan M, “The Walk to Emmaus
(Lk 24,13-35): The Lost Dimension,” Estudios
Biblicos, 54:2 (1996), 183-193.
Dickinson, Charles C, “A Passus in Christology,” Encounter, 43 (1982), 169-175.
Drury, John, “Luke,” pages 418-439 in Literary Guide to the Bible,
Belknap Press of Harvard Univ Pr, 1987.
Dussaut, Louis,
“Le triptyque des apparitions en Luc 24 (analyse structurelle),” Revue Biblique,
94 (1987),
161-213.
Fiedler, Peter,
“Die Gegenwart als osterliche Zeit - erfahrbar im Gottesdienst: Die
"Emmausgeschichte" Lk 24,13-35,” pages 124-144 in Auferstehung Jesu - Auferstehung der Christen, Freiburg, W Germany: Herder, 1986.
Goldberg, Gary J, “The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of
Josephus,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, (13 Ap 1995), 59-77.
Hickling, C J A, “The Emmaus Story and
its Sequel,” pages 21-23 in Resurrection,
SPCK, 1994.
Hornik, H. and M. Parsons, “Caravaggio's
Just, Arthur A, Jr, The Ongoing Feast: Table Fellowship and Eschatology at Emmaus,
Collegeville,
Mn: Liturgical Pr, 1993.
Karris, Robert
J, “Luke 24:13-35,” Interpretation, 41:1 (1987), 57-61.
Karris,
Robert J., O.F.M., “The Gospel According to Luke,” pages 675-721 in The New
Jerome
Biblical Commentary, eds. Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Joseph A. Fitzmyer,
S.J., and Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,
1990.
Lash, Nicholas,
Theology on the
Way to Emmaus, London: SCM Pr, 1986.
Legrand, Lucien,
“Deux voyages : Lc 2:41-50; 24:13-33,” pages 409-429 in A cause de
l'Evangile, Paris: editions du Cerf, 1985.
Liefeld, Walter L, “Luke 24:13-35,” Trinity Journal, (1981), 223-229.
Lindquist, Jack E, “The Emmaus Story (St Luke 24:13-35) as "Early Catholic" Liturgical
Catechesis,” pages 68-88 in Ecclesia, leiturgia, ministerium,
Marsh, Clive, “Rembrandt Reads the Gospels : Form, Context and Theological Responsibility in
New Testament Interpretation,” Scottish Journal of Theology, 50:4 (1997), 399-413.
Nortje, S J, “On the Road to Emmaus - a
Woman's Experience,” pages 271-280 in Text
and
Interpretation,
Perrot, Charles, “Emmaus ou la rencontre
du Seigneur,” pages 159-166 in Paque du
Christ
mystere de salut,
Plevnik, Joseph, “The Eyewitnesses of the Risen Jesus in Luke 24,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly,
49:1 (1987), 90-103.
Read-Heimerdinger, J., “Where is Emmaus? Clues in the Text of Luke 24 in Codex Bezae,”
pages 229-244 in Studies in the early text of the Gospels and
Acts,
Robinson, Bernard P, “The Place of the Emmaus Story in Luke-Acts,” New Testament Studies,
30:4 (1984), 481-497.
Rosica, Thomas M., “The Road to Emmaus
and the Road to
40,” Worship, 68 (Mr 1994), 117-131.
Saunders, Stanley P., “Discernment on the Way to Emmaus: Resurrection Imagination and
Practices in Luke 24-13-35,” Journal for Preachers, 20:3 (1997), 44-49.
Schuchard, Bruce G., “The Ongoing Feast: Table Fellowship and Eschatology at Emmaus,”
Logia, (
Soderlund, Sven, “Burning Hearts and Open
Minds: Exposition on the
23:1 (1987), 2-4.
Vercruysse, Jos E, “Sulla strada di
Emmaus . . .’: speranza per l'unita dei cristiani,” Studi
Ecumenici, (10 Ap-S 1992), 205-225.
Wojcik, Jan, The Road to Emmaus: Reading Luke's Gospel,
Pr, 1989.
Zwickel, Wolfgang, “Emmaus: Ein neuer Versuch,” Biblische Notizen, 74 (1994), 33-36.
[1] Legrand, Lucien, “Deux Voyages: Lc
[2] Lindquist, Jack E., “The Emmaus Story (
[3] Vercruysse, Jos E., “Sulla strada di Emmaus. . .’: speranza per l’unita de cristiani,” in Studi Ecumenici, (10 Ap-S 1992), 205-225; Berzonsky, Vladimir, “To Emmaus, with Jesus between Us,” in Ashland Theological Journal, (26 1994), 177-199.
[4] Hornik, H. and M. Parsons, “Caravaggio’s London Supper at Emmaus: A Counter-Reformation Reading of Luke 24,” Christian Scholar’s Review, 28:4 (1999), 561-585; Marsh, Clive, “Rembrandt Reads the Gospels: Form, Context and Theological Responsibility in New Testament Interpretation,” Scottish Journal of Theology 50:4 (1997), 399-413.
[5] Just, Arthur A., Jr., The Ongoing Feast: Table Fellowship and Eschatology at Emmaus, (Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Pr, 1993).
[6] Saunders, Stanley P., “Discernment on the Way to Emmaus: Resurrection Imagination and Practices in Luke 24:13-35,” Journal for Preachers, 20:3 (1997), 44-49; Wojcik, Jan, The Road to Emmaus: Reading Luke’s Gospel, (West Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue Univ Pr, 1989).
[7] Delzant, Antoine, “Les disciples d’Emmaus (Luc 24:13-35),” Reserches de Science Religieuse, 73:2 (1985), 177-186; Liefeld, Walter L., “Luke 24:13-35,” Trinity Journal, (1981), 223-229.
[8] Saunders 46.
[9] Derrett, J Duncan, “The Walk to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-35): The Lost Dimension,” Estudios Biblicos, 54:2 (1996), 185; this view of the disciples as missionaries can offer an idea of where Luke sees Jesus’ followers, though, I admit, this observation is a supposition based upon a supposition.
[10] Their eyes were held that they might not know him.
[11] My research has given
me no reason to do otherwise. Rather, it
has supported this theory of redaction history.
[12] Powell, Mark Allen, What Are
They Saying about Luke?, (New York; Paulist Press, 1989) 20.
[13] That is, some material may originate in a source other than Mark
and is simply being copied by Luke.
[14] There were no significant textual variants in this pericope among
the major manuscript sources.
[15] Kurz, William S., S.J., Reading
Luke-Acts: Dynamics of Biblical Narrative, (Louisville, Kentucky:
Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1993) 10.
[16] Ibid 70
[17] Powell 12
[18] Hornik and Parsons, 564.
[19] I am suggesting that these events are the key to understanding the
“closing” and “opening” verbs, which are, themselves, the real key to this
passage.
[20] Just, 26.
[21] Hornik and Parsons, 564.
[22] Saunders, 47; n.b. that it is Christ who is the initial stranger in this passage.
[23] Cf. Neyrey 377 for further discussion of the connection between
Jesus’ preaching and the experience of table fellowship. Neyrey also ties these themes into a few
passages from Acts (
[24] Saunders, 44.
[25] Liefeld, 228.
[26] ibid 18.
[27] Kurz 12.
[28] Esler 25.
[29] Ibid 25
[30] Karris 676.
[31] e.g. Lk 15:11-32.
[32] Cf. Talbert, Charles
H., Luke and the Gnostics: An Examination
of Lukan Purpose, (New York: Abingdon Press, 1966) 20&71 for an
extended discussion on the desire by Luke to provide a firm witness of the
things written in the Gospel (generally) and of the continuing presence of
Jesus (particularly with this passage in mind).
[33] Indeed, much of the Emmaus story can be set up in a series of such
paired phrases.
[34] Just, 65.
[35] Another fascinating parallel is found in the Septuagint translation
of Genesis, in which autwn
dianoicqhsan oi ofqalmoi. In this case, it is the eyes of Adam and Eve
to which the author is referring.
However, the action that they have just performed, eating from the tree
of knowledge of good and evil is, I feel, most significant to the interpretation
of opening used in the Emmaus passage.
[36] Just, 28; Liefeld, 224; Derrett, 146.
[37] Blass, F. and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Pr, 1961), 72.
[38] Wojcik, 2.
[39] Nortje, S J, “On the Road to Emmaus – A Woman’s Experience,” in Text and Interpretation, (Leiden: EJ Brill, 1991), 271-280.
[40] Wojcik, 3.
[41] To assume that God alone is preventing the disciples from recognising Jesus present with them implies that God’s power has overcome the natural faculties of the disciples. These senses, vision being one of them, are the means by which it is most natural to receive information that will be later evaluated and used to determine a course of action. Thus the ability to act freely in the world is filtered through the ability to perceive and evaluate freely. Often the question is asked as to why God did not prevent Adam and Eve from eating the forbidden fruit (note the above mention of grammatical parallels in order to see why this is a relevant reference). The answer commonly held is that God cannot act to prevent the free will of humans. This principle is invoked time and again in order to explain why God does not act to prevent tragedy. By the same notion of free agency of humans, then, one can recognise that if God were to prevent the disciples from seeing, than they would be inhibited in their ability to freely choose their actions. If the interpreters wish to suggest that God is controlling the disciples and preventing them from seeing, they are falling into a rather shallow understanding of divine power.
[42] Referring to the parallel passage in Genesis, the reader finds that
it is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that has brought about
the new vision that Adam and Eve experience.
Note also that the fall of Adam and Eve was occasioned by a table
fellowship as well.
[43] Just, 65-6.
[44] This distinction is similar to saying that it is not the doctor who
saves the patient, but rather it is the medicine administered by the doctor
that acts upon the disease of the patient.
Though this may be considered by some a trivial distinction, it is the
unique perspective that this distinction offers that is at the heart of this
paper’s exploration
[45] Just, 67.
[46] Karris, Robert J., O.F.M., “The Gospel According to Luke,” in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, (eds. Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., and Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm.; Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990), 720.
[47] Kurz 69.
[48] Ibid 143
[49] Brunk, George, “Journey to Emmaus: A Study in Critical Methodology,” in Essays on Biblical Interpretation, (Elkhart, IN: Institute of Mennonite Studies, 1984), 215.
[50] Just, 29.
[51] Saunders, 48.
[52] Powell 34.
[53] Just, 28.
[54] Saunders, 48.
[55] The reader should note
the earlier comments about Luke’s audience in order to shape an idea about what
it might have understood as the elements being communicated by Christ.
[56] Nortje, 275.
[57] Hornik and Parsons, 584.
[58] Derrett, 190.