The road to Emmaus
Story: The legendary British journalist and media personality Malcolm Muggeridge was a Marxist before he found Christ.
During the Cold War he travelled to Russia to write a story about the Communist party and the decline of religion in that atheistic regime.
After conducting a series of interviews with officials in the Kremlin, he attended a Russian Orthodox Easter service.
The church was packed.
At the close of the service the priest said, “Christ is risen”.
And the people shouted back, “He is risen indeed!”
Muggeridge looked into their faces and instantly realised that they were right and that Stalin was wrong.
He said it was the reality of their joy that tipped the scales for him towards Christ.
The reality of Christian joy is compelling!
Story: According to an ancient Russian Orthodox tradition, the day before Easter was devoted to telling jokes.
Priests would join the people in telling their best jokes to one another. (presumably “clean” jokes!!)
The reason was to reflect the joke God pulled on the devil in the Resurrection.
Satan thought he won on Friday, but God had the last laugh on Easter Sunday.
Our Gospel reading this morning was the well known and well loved story of the appearance of the risen Jesus to two disciples on the road to Emmaus.
I love it because somewhere it seems to always warm my heart when I read it.
Who were the two disciples?
We know one of them was Cleopas – but who was the other
There are two suggestions
1. The other was Luke himself – how else would St Luke know the story in such detail.
But speaking against that theory is the belief that Luke was a Gentile.
In fact Luke was the only Gentile to write a book in the New Testament –
The two disciples on the road to Emmaus were clearly Jews.
2. The other suggestion is that the other disciple as Cleopas’ wife.
She is unnamed because of the position of women in first century Palestine.
The Jewish prayer book (the siddur ) has this prayer that Jewish men still use
“Blessed are you O God, King of the Universe, Who has not made me
“a goy [Gentile],”
“a slave,” and
“a woman.”
In Jesus day women could not give evidence in a Jewish Court of Law.
Is that the reason Luke doesn’t name Cleopas’ companion?
Whoever Cleopas’s companion was - is an interesting conundrum – but it doesn’t actually impact the story.
As I have mentioned over the last three weeks, that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is central to our faith.
St Paul puts it like this:
“..if Christ has not been raised from the dead, your faith is futile” (I Cor. 15: 17)
Yet, have you ever been surprised how little space all four Gospel writers give the post Resurrection appearances of Jesus?.
St Matthew devotes one Chapter out of 28
St Mark devotes one Chapter out of 16
St. Luke devotes only one chapter out of 24 &
St. John devotes two Chapters out of 21.
St. Luke only records two ACTUAL post Resurrection appearances.
i) one of these was Jesus’ appearance to two disciples on the Road to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-35) and
ii) the other actual post Resurrection appearance in Lk 36-49 that follows on from the story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus.
Cleopas and his friend having realised that had met Jesus rush directly back the seven miles from Emmaus to Jerusalem and tell the other disciples what has happened.
As they are discussing what Cleopas and his friend had to say Jesus appeared in the room where they were meeting and said peace be with you.
Now we know from St. Paul, that at least 514 men – not to count the women such as Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (as St. Matthew calls her) - saw the risen Lord (see 1 Cor. 15:3-8).
So the question I asked myself is this
" Why did Luke pick only two Resurrection appearances as the only evidence for the Resurrection in his book
What was so special about these two appearances?
To answer that question, I will have to pose another and that is:
What was St. Luke’s aims when he wrote his Gospel?
As you all know; St. Luke was a consummate historian.
He wrote his two-volume treatise (Luke-Acts) on the Christian faith with - I would suggest to you – at least two aims in mind.
1. His first aim is to give a reliable explanation of the origins of Christianity.
That is to say Luke sets out to tell the story of Jesus and its continuation in the life of the church.
2. His second aim, I believe is to show the relationship of Christianity to Judaism.
In other words, St. Luke sets out to show how Jesus was the fulfilment of the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament Scriptures.
And interestingly, both these post Resurrection stories in Luke fulfill these criteria.
1. Firstly, we see a reliable explanation of the origins of Christianity
Inn Luke’s Gospel we read of the truth of the bodily Resurrection of Jesus and as Charlie Moule the famous New Testament scholar once wrote:
"the birth and rapid rise of the Christian Church ... remains an unsolved enigma for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the church itself - the resurrection."
(C.F.D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the New Testament).
Story: An English House of Lords judge, Lord Diplock once said that "the Resurrection is the best proved fact in history".
How was Jesus different to other world religious leaders?
Mohammed died, the Buddha died and Confucius died.
Their followers never claimed that any of these leaders rose from the dead.
Jesus died and rose again.
His followers testified to the event.
Often when we look back on an encounter with God, we recognise that he was there.
Look at what the disciples said as they reflected on their walk to Emmaus:
“Did not our hearts glow within us while he was talking to us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us”.(Lk 24:32)
It wasn’t Jesus’ intellectual explanation that had meant much to them.
It was his very presence that warmed their hearts.
In Luke 24 , the resurrected Jesus was seen by two ordinary disciples – Cleopas and his friend, and then He was seen by other disciples
Luke is telling us: Jesus really bodily rose from the dead.
We read how, - in the inn in Emmaus, when Jesus was at table with them, He took bread gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them (Lk 24:30)
And it was then and only then that they recognized Jesus
Let me try to explain what the Cleopas and his companion had gone through in the previous week
It had been a horrific week for the two men.
The road from Jerusalem to Emmaus is about 7 miles - about a 2-hour walk.
As they walked down the road, they struggled to understand what has happened that week.
In the short space of 7 days, their world has been shattered.
Jesus - on whom they had placed all their hopes - was dead.
The Messiah had been killed, crucified on a Cross.
The light of their world had been extinguished.
As they walked along the road, they bumped into a man who engaged them in conversation and asked them why they are so sad.
Yet they didn’t recognise that it was Jesus with them
They told him that Jesus who they had hoped would deliver Israel was dead.
The man replied by explaining to them that all of this was in God’s plan.
Couldn’t they understand, he said that the Scriptures pointed to a Suffering Messiah and not to Superman.
(You might note that I have taken a little bit of liberty with the text here – but you get the drift).
And still they did not recognise Jesus with them.
When they reached Emmaus, they invited the man to have supper with them.
It was only when he took the bread, broke it and blessed it they recognised him.
They recognised Jesus the Risen Lord.
2. Have you ever wondered why the disciples couldn’t recognise him?
Matthew Rogers has suggested four possible explanations:
a) Jesus was wearing a disguise.
b) They had never stood this close to him before.
c) The late afternoon sun was glaring in their eyes.
d) A supernatural force was at work.
I believe St Luke tells us the answer.
It was a supernatural force was at work – God was at work.
These two travellers were in the presence of Jesus, but were none the wiser.
Luke tells us that
“They were kept from recognizing him.” (Lk 24:16) (NIV)
Another translation of the Bible (NASB)reads “their eyes were prevented from recognizing him.”
Yet another translation says “their eyes were restrained.”
These two travellers were in the presence of Jesus, but were none the wiser.
Sometimes God is at work and we don’t recognize Him at work in our lives.
(My thanks to Matthew Rogers in his Sermon "On the road ...again - in the SermonCentral.com databank - for these insights in section 2)
But when God allowed the two companions to recognize Jesus was it by the way Jesus broke bread?
Did Jesus have a distinctive action when he broke bread?
As the companions had invited Jesus in unknowingly, why was Jesus breaking bread rather than Cleopas who as a good host should have been serving the guests?
It is funny how you associate things with people.
Story: In the year after my father’s death, I thought I saw him in the High Street.
Why simply because the man I saw had the same wavy hair and from behind it looked like my Dad.
But when the man turned slightly, I saw his face which was different to that of my father.
But as Luke records, Jesus was no illusion when He talked with Cleopas and his companion.
And as soon as they recognized Jesus the whole pattern of their conversation that afternoon made sense.
I wonder what sprung to mind when I read the passage that said that Cleopas and his companion recognized Jesus when he broke bread and gave it to them
Did that remind you of anything?
The Holy Communion service of course
There is something very special about the Holy Communion service when Christ touches you.
No wonder St Paul tells us not to neglect taking communion regularly
2. Secondly, we see the relationship of Jesus with the Old Testament Scriptures of Judaism
St Luke records in the Emmaus story how Jesus said to the two disciples:
25…. "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
26 Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?"
27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
And, as an aside - by the Scriptures St. Luke meant the Old Testament as none of the New Testament books had been written by this stage).
Jesus was the fulfilment of what God promised centuries and even a millennium before - in the Old Testament.
What is interesting is the two disciples response to Jesus’ teaching
After Jesus had left them they said:
"Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?"
Story: John Wesley, founder of the Methodist church was actually an Anglican all his life.
He experienced something similar to the experience of the Emmaus Road Disciples when was 35 years old.
It happened on the evening of 24th May 1738.
Wesley, who by that time was an Anglican clergyman, had gone very unwillingly to a non-conformist meeting in London.
Here he heard William Holland reading Martin Luther's preface to the Epistle to the Romans.
Let me read to you what Wesley himself wrote about the transformation that occurred as he listened to Luther’s preface:
“About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed.
I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation: and an assurance was given me, that he had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death."— The Journal of John Wesley.
I’d like to leave you with a question this morning:
What do you feel when you read Scripture.
1.) Is it simply a “Christian chore” – a duty we have to perform or
2) Do you feel your heart strangely warmed or
3) Do you find your heart burning within you
If it has become more of a chore than a delight, may I suggest you invite the Holy Spirit to make God’s word burn within you as He did for Cleopas and his companion
