47    The Travelers to Emmaus

Scripture: Luke 24:13-32

Continued perplexity of Jesus’ followers

Rumors must have begun to fly in Jerusalem on Resurrection Sunday. Among the followers of Jesus there would be an excited telling and retell­ing of the report of the women con­cerning the empty tomb, the message of the angels, and the appearance of Jesus Himself. There would be ear­nest discussion of the observations of Peter and John on their visit to the tomb, which, as they were able to verify, was empty. And, at the same time, there was being circulated in Jeru­salem generally the story that the soldiers had reported a theft of the body while they were sleeping.

As far as the disciples were concerned, the evidence that there had indeed been a resurrection was mounting; and yet, as Rev. Hoeksema put it, “the rumors were still too vague to constitute a firm ground for their hope.” It might seem to us that the evidence was clear, for Jesus had been seen, heard, and even touched by competent witnesses. But to the disciples it was not quite so simple.

Apparently it was the nature of the resurrection that gave them problems. A resurrection like that of Lazarus they could understand. Lazarus had returned from the grave and was with his family and friends as before. With Jesus it was not so. There were reported appearances (to the women and to Mary); but “it all had been so strange, so transitory, so different from His life and walk among them in the past . . . . He had come and gone, had been seen for a moment and disappeared” (Hoeksema). There was a ring of unreality to the reports, which led the disciples to wonder if perhaps the women had let their imaginations get the best of them. The only thing concrete they had to go on was that the tomb was empty—and they did not know what to make of that. It was un­doubtedly with a feeling of nervous expectation that Jesus’ followers waited for further developments.

Travelers to Emmaus

It happened that two of them in the company were from Emmaus, a village about “three score furlongs” from Jerusalem (Luke 24:13)—seven and a half miles, according to Eder­sheim. As the day wore on, and nothing happened to enlighten them, they decided that they should leave for home, since they would be two or three hours on the way. So they took leave of the rest of the disciples and, continuing between the two of them their discussion of the events of the past three days, headed down the road to Emmaus (the location of which village, incidentally, cannot today be determined with certainty).

Carnal conception of the kingdom

Those events were a puzzle to them. The disciples of Jesus, as we have noted before, did not understand His death. And that lack of understanding concerning His death was due in turn to their mis­conception of the nature of Christ’s kingdom. They looked truly for the redemption of Israel, but they con­ceived of that redemption as being political in nature and resulting in a kingdom that was earthly in its manifestation. It is true that that was a kingdom that appealed to the flesh, to carnal desires. It is true that the twelve had before coveted positions of prominence in the king­dom that they hoped would be es­tablished in Jerusalem. And with the death of Jesus those hopes were dashed. The element of carnality in their miscon­ception of the kingdom cannot, there­fore, be denied.

Difficulty of making the transition from the old to the new dispensation

But there is another considera­tion, one that we might be inclined to overlook, that nevertheless helps to explain the difficulty encountered by the disciples in comprehending Christ’s work. “Their ignorance finds its explanation, at least in part,” ac­cording to Rev. Ophoff, “in the cir­cumstance that they had not yet the heavenly as the direct object of their vision. And they could not have, as the heavenly had not yet appeared.” The disciples lived, you see, in the time of transition from the old dispen­sation to the new, from the day of shadows to the day of heavenly reali­ties. It was those heavenly realities, the fulfillment of all of the Old Testa­ment types, which “had not yet ap­peared.” The disciples therefore still thought in terms of the typical. And the type was exactly this: an earthly kingdom. Deliverance for the Israel of the old dispensation was deliver­ance from the yoke of an oppressor. The favor of the Lord was reflected in Israel’s political independence and in her material prosperity. “Israel’s sal­vation,” writes Rev. Ophoff, “had always assumed this form. When they forsook (God), His wrath would burn against them. Then the enemy would enter their borders to rob and kill. But as often as they would re­pent of their apostasy, He would forgive them and bring deliverance.” And the problem, again according to Ophoff, was that the disciples “realized not that this commonwealth (the Israelitish state) was but shadow—a shadow of the heavenly.”

For us of the new dispensation it is difficult perhaps to appreciate the limitations of Old Testament thinking. But what we must remem­ber is that, for all the years of its existence, the nation of Israel had been bound to the typical. Think, for example, of the deliverance from the land of bondage and the inheritance of the earthly Canaan. Think of the Aaronitic priesthood and the Davidic line of kings. Think of the tabernacle and temple, and the worship of God by means of bloody sacrifices and through careful observance of cere­monies that were rich in typical significance. Israel’s attention to the typical in all aspects of its life was a necessary thing. And that includes their concern about deliverance from foreign oppression. But now, at the dawn of the new dispensation, all these things reached their fulfillment in Christ and in the establishment of His kingdom. All at once the temple lost its significance, the priesthood its reason for existence, and the sacrifices their purpose. And what real, spirit­ual importance did the independence of the commonwealth have? None at all. In one sweep, as it were, all of the shadows were brushed aside.

And what Rev. Ophoff meant to say, I think, is that the transition was not as easy as we who have lived only in the light of the new dispensa­tion might think it ought to have been. The Jews knew only the typical. It was always and only through the typical that Jehovah was worshiped. It is not true, of course, that faithful Jews of the old dispensa­tion had no knowledge of the fact that they dealt with types that pictured heavenly realities. But after being conditioned, so to speak, to the types for hundreds of years, it was difficult to believe that they were only sha­dows, which had no special signi­ficance in and of themselves. Rev. Ophoff concludes, at any rate, that the view “that the expectation of the disciples of the Lord was indicative of sheer carnality is wrong. The dis­ciples—all of them—were, as to the heart of their dis­position, true believers. What they yearned for in the final instance was not the earth­ly but God. Hence, what they had need of knowing is that God loved them, loved His people. And because, so they thought, the fresh token of this love was to be His delivering His people from the yoke of an earthly oppressor, it was to this deliverance, and to the coming of the promised deliverer, that they were looking for­ward.”

Perhaps that will help a little to understand the perplexity of the followers of Jesus on Friday, Satur­day, and Sunday of this Passover week. Not that their ignorance can be excused on this basis . . . for Christ Himself attributes that ignorance to a slowness of heart to believe the Scrip­tures—to say nothing about their disbelief of His own clear teach­ing with regard to His death. But it was nevertheless their inability to rise above the typical that resulted in their clinging to the notion that re­demption must be tied somehow to the earthly commonwealth, and must therefore consist in deliverance from the Roman yoke. And, if it were to consist in that kind of deliverance, then the cross could have no logical place in a plan of redemption. That was exactly what the disciples struggled with: how to explain the cross. That was what the two travelers were earnestly discussing when Jesus joined them on their journey to Em­maus (Luke 24:14, 15).

Jesus joins the travelers

We read that “while they com­muned together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them” (24:15). The idea seems to be that Jesus appeared first just a bit behind them, and “with a few strides easily caught up with these travelers” (Lenski). The subsequent communica­tion that passed between Jesus and the two men seems to suggest further that Jesus joined Himself to the party and walked quietly with them for a moment or two, listening to their reasoning. Then He asked sympatheti­cally, “What manner of communica­tions are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?” (24:17).

Assuming that He has heard enough of their conversation to know that they are discussing Jesus of Nazareth, they express surprise that He could possibly be ignorant of the par­ticulars. Because of their own deep and personal interest in the matter, they think everyone in Jeru­salem must be aware of the terrible turn of events that Friday brought, and of the rumors that were surfac­ing on Sunday. “Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem,” they ask, “and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?” (24:18). And Jesus, the Master Teacher, knowing that they will learn best from His instruction if they first themselves state exactly what their problem is, asks simply, “What things?” (24:19).

Jesus conceals His identity

By this time the two men (one of whom was called Cleopas, about whom we know nothing beyond this encounter with Jesus) must have had opportunity to scrutinize the Man who was becoming their traveling com­panion. And yet they knew Him not. They evidently belonged to the wider circle of Jesus’ disciples and would certainly have been able to recognize Jesus at once—except for two cir­cumstances, according to the gospel accounts. Mark tells us that Jesus appeared on this occasion “in another form” (16:12). A form it was, as we saw before, that was dif­ferent from that which they had known previous­ly, for He was glori­fied. But it was also, and this seems more likely to be Mark’s point, a form that was dif­ferent from that of His other ap­pearances. It was a form, evidently, that would lead them to believe at once that He was just another travel­er.

And yet, the idea is not that He appeared in a form that was un­recognizable, as far as His identity was concerned. The likeness to the body that had been put in the grave was still there. And recog­nition would soon enough have come to the two travelers, especially as He began to expound to them the Scrip­tures—if it were not for the fact that, as Luke tells us, “their eyes were holden that they should not know him” (24:16). Jesus, for His own purposes, concealed His identity. He might, after all, have appeared to them in such a way that they would know Him at once. But Jesus knew well that what these men needed most was not an opportunity simply to see the risen Lord. If that is all they received, their problem would remain, nothing reduced by their sight of Him.

What they needed was instruc­tion. And the instruction would be most effective if they could be made to see that the solution could be had from the Scriptures themselves, apart even from any visual evidence for the resurrection. It was this that Jesus provided by withholding His identity until He broke bread before them in their home in Emmaus.

The travelers state their problem

Their problem, the one piece that, as Rev. Hoeksema wrote, “al­ways refused to be fitted into this puzzle, always mocked their every attempt fully to explain Jesus of Nazareth,” was the cross. This be­came evident just as soon as they began to answer Jesus’ question: “What things?” The two men pro­ceeded to give a simple, direct, ac­curate statement of the problem as they conceived of it.

It has to do, they said, with Jesus of Nazareth, a prophet, shown by the might of His deeds and the power of His word to be approved of God, and for those deeds and words approved also by men (24:19). But, they added, He died. The chief priests (and notice that they put the first responsibility where it belongs, not with the Roman authorities) have crucified Him (24:20). We, however, in contrast to our rulers, hoped He would redeem Israel (24:21). And their point was that, now that Jesus has died, those hopes have been blasted.

       They go on to note that “to day is the third day” (24:21), probably a reference to Jesus’ promise that He would rise again—a promise of which the women had been reminded by the angel (24:7) and which the women must in turn have repeated to the disciples. The travelers then tell Jesus also about the women, and the “astonishment” of the dis­ciples at their report of “the vision of angels, which said that he was alive” (24:2, 23). And they conclude by saying that two of their number (Pe­ter and John) visited the sepulcher and con­firmed that it was indeed empty.

Are they saying that they do not believe that there might have been some kind of resurrection? It seems not. What they are saying is, for one thing, that they do not know what to make of the rumors of a pos­sible resurrection. But, more impor­tantly, they are saying that, even if there should prove to be substance to what the women reported, their prob­lem would remain: “He died! Yes, that is the problem; He should not have died! For why should the re­deemer, on whom our hope is fixed, die?... Yes, there are different rumors in Jerusalem . . . women have seen a vision of angels . . . and it is also the third day . . . . But, he died! And that is our problem! If the problem of that cross were solved, if someone would explain to us how the death of our Messiah can properly belong to His appearance, then perhaps . . .” (Rev. Hoeksema).

Jesus instructs from the Scriptures

“O fools, and slow of heart . . .” (24:25). “Fools,” they were, not in the sense in which that word is applied to the ungodly, but fools rather with regard to the use of their intellect. For, if they had not been such “dullards” (Lenski) and so slow of heart to believe the prophets, they would not have found the cross to be incongruous with the establishment of Christ’s kingdom.

The two travelers must have been somewhat taken aback by those words of sharp and unexpected re­proof. Taken aback . . . but not of­fended; for they had declared to this stranger what to them was an in­soluble mys­tery—and there was probably some­thing already in the tone of the Man that gave them hope that He had, and was ready to impart to them, the solution.

Jesus did exactly that. He gets immediately to the heart of their problem when He asks, “Ought not Christ to have suf­fered these things, and to enter into his glory?” (24:26). The necessity of the cross: that is what they were struggling with. And for the solution Jesus went straight to the Scriptures. “Beginning at Moses and all the proph­ets he ex­pounded unto them in all the scrip­tures the things concern­ing himself” (24:27). “He could point,” wrote Rev. Hoeksema, “to the very dawn of prop­hecy, when it was an­nounced that the seed of the woman would crush the head of the seed of the serpent, but not without having His own heel bruised in the conflict. And from it, as the mother of all prophecies, He could continue through all of Moses and through all of the prophets, pointing to the types and shadows, to priests and sacrifices; He could dwell with Isaiah under the very shadow of His own cross, and always it would be the same central theme: ought not the Christ to have suffered thus and to enter into His glory?”

Importance of considering all the Scriptures

Yes, it was “all the scriptures” that Jesus used in that wonderful ser­mon. The disciples had believed some of what the prophets had prophesied about the Christ—for example, that He would come and establish a glor­ious kingdom. But, as Rev. Ophoff remarked, “the one great, misleading prejudice of the disciples had been their belief that the path of the promised Messiah was only to be one of tri­umph and glory.” Their dullness, their stupidity, was revealed exactly in this, that they were slow to believe all that the prophets had spoken. They overlooked those very things in the prophecies and in the types and sha­dows that were essential to an understanding of the nature of the kingdom. He had to suffer. Why? Because, in order to enter His glory (and not, now, only personally, but as the Head of His people, to whom He is inseparably united) He must re­deem His own, redeem them from the power and the curse of sin and death. That is what redemption is all about. And that is what the prophets had foretold, and what the sacrifices had pointed to.

Growing understanding

Did they not see it? Yes, they were beginning at last to understand. By their own testimony, their hearts burned within them (24:32)—burned, that is, “with the new hope and joy which the Scriptures which He opened to them and was applying to their heart, kindled in their heart” (Rev. Ophoff).  The two hours on the way must have passed all too quickly for the travelers. They would have liked to have heard more, more, more of this wonderful exposition of the Scriptures. On reaching Emmaus they therefore “constrained” Jesus to abide with them that night, for, they said, “it is toward evening” (24:28, 29).

They were not, however, to have Him with them long. When the table for the evening meal was prepared, Jesus assumed the role of host (which, no doubt, seemed a natural thing to the two men who had learned so much under Him as their teacher for the past hours), He pro­nounced the blessing, brake and gave them the bread . . . and suddenly they recognized Him.

“As if a veil had fallen from their eyes, they now saw that it was Jesus . . . . But in that same instant, when their hands al­most touched His as they took bread, he became ‘non-appearing,’ ‘hidden from them.’ The place where He lay (that is, ‘reclined’ at the table) a mo­ment ago was empty” (Lenski).
===========================================================================
Return to the New Work on New Testament History Page