13. Now that very same day, two of them were on their way to a village called Emmaus, seven miles from Jerusalem, 14.and they were talking together about all that had happened. 15.And it happened that as they were talking together and discussing it, Jesus himself came up and walked by their side; 16.but their eyes were prevented from recognising him… 30. Now while he was with them at table, he took the bread and said the blessing; then he broke it and handed it to them. 31. And their eyes were opened and they recognised him; but he had vanished from their sight. 32. Then they said to each other, ‘Did not our hearts burn within us as he talked to us on the road and explained the scriptures to us?’ 33. They set out that instant and returned to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven assembled together with their companions, 34. who said to them, ‘The Lord has indeed risen and has appeared to Simon.’ 35. Then they told their story of what had happened on the road and how they had recognised him at the breaking of bread. [Luke 24:13-16, 30-35, NJB]
Supper at Emmaus with candlelight by Matthias Stom
“Why did the two disciples on the road to Emmaus not recognize Jesus?” is an often-asked question. We think it has to do with a combination of reasons: a different appearance in Jesus’ resurrected body; the disciples’ trauma over the Lord’s suffering and crucifixion which marred their vision; their incapability to begin to believe in the resurrection on account of their belief in a triumphant Messiah; and a consequential slowness-of-heart to believe what the ancient prophets had actually foretold about the suffering Messiah. But we do have to be clear of the reality that because the resurrected Jesus ate with his disciples, the Risen Lord wanted his disciples to know that:
- his resurrection appearance and existence was real and significant;
- the real world was as concrete and real to him as it is to us; and
- we must carry out our resurrection-practices in the real world, not in heaven.
1. A Recognition Story
Luke Timothy Johnson, a New Testament Professor, sees the Emmaus story as a recognition story, and thus a story about what he terms “learning Jesus”. In other words, the point about reading the Gospel, he says in “The Eucharist and the identity of Jesus” [Priests & People (2001), 230-235], is not to know about Jesus. Rather, we read so as to learn Jesus, as does a disciple, which means to be transformed into the very identity we discover in what we read. L.T. Johnson takes us to the core of Bible-reading, which to him is not to ask the historical question of what actually happened, but ask instead:
- “Who is this who speaks and acts now in my life?”
- “How can I learn him in my present from this witness and interpretation of his past as read by those who first experienced him also as present to them after his death?”
Seeking “truth” in this manner, L.T. Johnson believes there is no end to our learning, so long as we go beyond the surface meaning of Bible stories and begin to truly inhabit them – to live in them – in our own time and space. For then, we shall really grow and deepen in experience and in faith.
It is in this line of approach that L.T. Johnson takes in reading the Emmaus story as a starting point for thinking about the identity of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. He focuses on the single line concluding the Emmaus story: “Then they told their story of what had happened on the road and how they had recognised him at the breaking of bread” [Luke 24:35, NJB]. The RSV translated this more literally as “how he was known to them at the breaking of the bread.” This summary statement at the conclusion of the story takes the readers back to the scene of the supper at Emmaus where by words and action, Jesus broke bread in the fourfold meal pattern – taking, blessing, breaking and giving – and they recognized him. Luke uses the verb epiginoskein – ‘to come to a recognition’ – as an indicator helpful for solving two puzzles:
Puzzle (i): Why did the disciples not know that they were with Jesus on the road?
L.T. Johnson does not yield to speculations about physical appearance of Jesus or the psychological conditions of the disciples. Instead he turns to what Luke says, which states rather simply that “they were prevented from recognizing him.” The original Greek text reads literally “their eyes were held in order that they might not recognize him”. On careful reading, Luke the writer is telling us that there is, in the first place, something beyond the control of the disciples, the passive voice rather suggesting a divine control. In the second place, this “prevention” sounds purposeful and deliberate, and the writer is pointing to something lacking which requires further experience to fill up.
Puzzle (ii): Why did they suddenly recognize Jesus in the act of breaking and sharing bread?
Jesus’ gestures at the breaking of the bread were the same that accompanied every meal in Judaism. Why then should they remind the disciples particularly of Jesus? L.T. Johnson points to “memory” or “remembering” as the first hint.
In the passage (24:1-11) just before the Emmaus story, Luke gives his version of the empty tomb story which differs from Mark and Matthew’s. In Luke, the women are not told to go and tell the disciples that Jesus goes before them to Galilee. Instead, they are urged to “remember” what Jesus said to them while he was still in Galilee. Jesus had said, “the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised” (9:22). Luke says the women remembered Jesus’ words (24:8). For Luke, then, the recognition of the Risen Christ hinges on the memory of the words that he spoke. May we not go on to imagine that Luke might also be suggesting that the disciples’ memory of Jesus’ characteristic actions and body gestures during his life may have also aided their recognition of the Risen One?
2. How We Can Remember Galilee
We, too, can “remember Galilee” by observing Jesus closely under the pen of Luke.
In particular, L.T. Johnson is impressed by a remarkable freedom displayed by Jesus. This freedom is all the more impressive on account of a paradox. On the one hand, Jesus “appears to be someone whose destiny is determined both by a script provided by Scripture and by the will of power over which he has no control”. He seems to make few real choices, and in fact usually accepts what presents itself to him. And yet, on the other hand, his freedom comes through so remarkably precisely because his faithful obedience to the will of the Father so defined him that, “he is free to be available to whatever presents itself.” Somehow, people seem to know intuitively that he is approachable and, indeed, “he is immediately present to them all.” This being-present-to-others is in itself very remarkable in Jesus who, when he is dealing with you, always gives his full attention to you free of distraction. In sum, “in his being present to every moment given to him by God – with every moment’s pleasure and every moment’s pain – Jesus is perfectly faithful and fully free.”
L.T. Johnson takes us through an array of situations so we may observe Jesus’ freedom displayed in the concrete.
First, Jesus displays a freedom that is liberating for others, such as by entering into close intimacy with Martha and Mary, being present to them, and yet not running their lives. Likewise in Jesus’ self-referential parable of the Good Samaritan, “the stranger enters the injured man’s life only to restore it, not to replace it with his patronage.”
Second, Jesus shows a freedom that is accessible to the touch of others. A sinful woman who anoints him with an alabaster flask of ointment has her sins forgiven because she loves much (7:36-50). The woman who has been bleeding for years touches him with faith and his divine power flows out to make her whole again (8:44-46). The point is, this liberty of access in favour of others permits them to touch him and be changed.
Third, in freedom, Jesus can freely touch others. Notice, however, that Jesus does not seize, control, or force, but he “reaches out and touches that which is broken and makes it well.” So he touches and heals the man with leprosy (5:13), touches the bier which carries the dead son of a widow at Nain, raising him and giving him to her (7:15), raises the little girl who died and commands that she be given something to eat (8:54-55), touches and straightens up a kyphotic woman in the synagogue (13:13), and touches and restores the slave of the chief priest whose ear Peter has cut off (22:51).
- Jesus’ freedom to touch others for their good not only behooves us to give comforting and healing touches to others wherever needed, but at the same time to receive the same from others as we need them. In this way, we may all feel God in every gentle touch, see God in every happy face, hear God in every caring word, and daily receive God’s blessings in our lives.
Fourth, Jesus shares meals freely with all people. He is frequently pictured at meals. Even though he prefers to eat with tax collectors and sinners (7:34; 15:1-2), he also shares table fellowship with the religiously righteous Pharisees (11:37-54; 14:1). Three meals in particular offer pointers for understanding why the Emmaus disciples were able to recognize Jesus at the breaking of the bread.
- Even though not much of a meal, Jesus’ hungry disciples ate from the grain fields on a Sabbath, which irked the Pharisees (6:1-5). In response, Jesus appeals to the example of David and his followers who, to fill their hunger, ate from the altar which only priests were allowed to do. This event captures brilliantly “the sense of Jesus’ freedom as directed by the occasion God presents, specifically, the very human necessity to eat when hungry and the legitimacy of meeting that basic need despite religious constraints.”
- The context for feeding the crowd of five thousand hungry men in a deserted place (9:11-17) was teaching on the kingdom of God and healing, both by the disciples who just returned from mission, and Jesus himself doing the same for the crowd following him. Narrating Jesus’ miraculous multiplication of five loaves of bread and two fish to feed the multitude, with twelve baskets of leftover, Luke stresses two practical and pastoral lessons. One, “the common meal expresses the reality of the common life. The common life is defined by the teaching of the kingdom and the healing of the people.” Two, “authorities within the community consists of teaching and healing. These realities are symbolized by the meal in which those who teach and heal also wait on tables and serve food to those they teach and heal.”
- At the Last Supper (22:14-23), Jesus’ farewell meal is sealed with his prophetic utterance: “I shall not eat it until the time when it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” His same words and gestures on the fourfold meal pattern – take, bless, break and give – here and in the feeding of the multitude now signify “my body, which is given up for you”, and “my blood which is being poured out for you.” So L.T. Johnson sums it up: “Just as the bread and fishes at the feeding symbolized Jesus’ ministry of service in teaching and healing, so the bread and wine symbolize his identity as God’s gift of love in service to humanity.”
Fifth, Jesus’ freedom is displayed in his vision of authority. Two elements for the Last Supper heighten our learning.
- [i] Jesus’ words and actions over the bread and wine are “self-donative” words and gestures. And yet, what follows at once amongst the disciples was argument over which of them was to be regarded the greatest. So Jesus instructs them in what is essentially a “new vision of authority”, namely, authority does not consist in domination over others, but is to be expressed in littleness and service: “Let the greatest among you become the youngest, and the leader as one who serves” (22:26). Now, at the Last Supper in Luke, Jesus spells out this radical vision of authority in terms of the dynamics of a meal: “I am among you as one who serves at table” (22:27). The lesson for today is clear: any disciple of Jesus who claims to continue Jesus’ authority in the kingdom-building ministry must do so through the same radical and self-emptying service. We shall bear in mind that Judas was not the only one who betrayed Jesus. The early apostles who jostled for position at the Last Supper were equally guilty of betrayal of their discipleship. Furthermore, the identity of Jesus and the integrity of those who serve him will henceforth be determined at the common meal where “the integrity of leadership is revealed through servanthood”.
- [ii] After saying “this is my body which is being given for you,” Luke has Jesus commanding the disciples to “keep doing this in remembrance of me” (22:19). The present imperative of poieō has the strict sense of a command to continued practice. The term “remembrance” (anamnēsis) means “to bring to mind” and goes further than a mechanical way; it is a form of presence. Then, the real question is what does “keep doing this (thing)” mean? Is Jesus talking about repetitive ritual of breaking bread in his name? Yes, certainly, that is one dimension of it. But there is much more, because Jesus also implies, and many would argue more significantly so, that “this thing” in his gesture of breaking bread as his body and pouring out wine as his blood signifies the gift of his life given in service of humanity. More than mere ritual-celebration, keeping on doing this means, above all, living according to this pattern. This gesture remembers and reveals the identity of Jesus, the One who sacrificed his life for us, and at once calls us to make sacrifices in service of others.
3. For Our Own Transformation
The Emmaus disciples’ disclosure of early hope, recent despair, and ambiguous rumour from the women’s tomb visit, reveals that their problem is one of affections and will. They did not want to face the reality that Jesus had repeatedly told them that it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and enter into glory. Without grasping the essence of what it meant for Jesus to break bread as his body and to pour out wine as his blood, and without admitting in their hearts that the Messiah must suffer, there was no way they could recognize the Crucified and Resurrected Lord. In reading the Emmaus story with care and attention, we shall come to a better understanding of our own story.
- Are we not often slow in acknowledging the presence of the Risen One?
- Are we not reluctant to face the suffering at the heart of the good news and therefore in our own personal transformation?
- Do we hear the Lord rebuking us for preferring to be served rather than to serve?
- Do we not see that the Church from the beginning has been a fragile web of experience and story and Scripture?
- Can we learn to open our eyes to the “strangers” around us who may open our eyes to the deeper meaning of the Scriptures and lead us to the presence of the Lord at table-fellowship?
Copyright © Dr. Jeffrey & Angie Goh, September 2021. All rights reserved.
You are most welcome to respond to this post. Email your comments to jeffangiegoh@gmail.com. You can also be dialogue partners in this Ephphatha Coffee-Corner Ministry by sending us questions for discussion.