Sermon: “Stay with Us”

Text: Luke 24:13-35

3^rd Sunday of Easter (A)

April 6, 2008

Scripture introduction.  This morning’s second reading is taken from Luke’s account of the events of the first Easter, the day of Jesus’ resurrection.  As Luke tells the story, women who were followers of Jesus were the first at the tomb.  They found the stone rolled away, and two men in dazzling white clothes appeared to them and reported that Jesus was not in the tomb, but had risen.  The women returned and told this to the remaining eleven disciples, but they dismissed the story.  Peter must have had second thoughts, however, because he ran to the tomb and saw for himself that the burial clothes were there, but not Jesus.

Luke then shifts the focus, as our text for today begins.  Two of Jesus’ disciples—not among the original twelve—were on the road to a small town called Emmaus, which was near Jerusalem.  We might reasonably infer that they were returning home after observing the Passover in the city.  As they walked, they were discussing intently the events of the last few days—Jesus’ crucifixion and the disappearance of his body.  Soon Jesus appeared on the road and accompanied them, but they did not recognize him then.  When they told him why they were so sad, he began to interpret the Scripture for them, showing them how the Old Testament (for there was no New Testament yet) could be read to predict the suffering of the Messiah before he entered into his glory. 

When the three of them arrived at Emmaus, Jesus acted as if he were going further, probably so that the other two would not feel obligated to invite him to their house.[1]  Yet they did invite him to come in and share a meal.  At the meal Jesus took the bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them.  In the breaking of the bread, their eyes were opened and they recognized Jesus, who promptly disappeared.  The two then turned to one another and recalled how on the road their hearts had burned as Jesus opened the Scriptures to them.  Very intentionally, I think, Luke uses the same Greek word to describe the opening of the disciples’ eyes and Jesus’ opening of the Scripture.  Why did Luke do this?

Sermon.  I ended the Scripture introduction earlier with the question, why did Luke use the same Greek word to describe the “opening” of the disciples’ eyes and also Jesus’ “opening” of the Scripture to them.  I believe Luke’s word usage was intentional.  He could have used many other words for Jesus’ interpretation of the Scriptures.  Earlier in fact, in verse 27, Luke actually did use another word to describe how Jesus explained “Moses and all the prophets” to these two disciples.  But here, back to back in verses 31 and 32, by his word choice Luke connected the recognition of Jesus with the proper understanding of Scripture.  Apparently, Luke wanted his readers to understand that there is a linkage between Scripture and the recognition of Jesus.

We need to remember that Luke’s gospel probably was not written until sometime in the 80s or 90s of the first century.  This would have been at least a generation after the events of that first Easter day.  While the New Testament reports a number of appearances by Jesus in the days and weeks after his resurrection, it was not long before they ended.  The Christians and potential Christians who lived when Luke wrote his gospel in many ways had no more direct evidence of Jesus’ resurrection than we do.  Even if there were still some eyewitnesses alive, there may have been none in the community for which Luke wrote his gospel.  Alan Culpepper has suggested that Luke, who is the only gospel writer to tell the Emmaus story in any detail, intentionally tells it in such a way as to address the concerns of persons who have not seen the risen Christ.[2]  Luke wants his readers to understand there is a connection between Scripture and recognizing Christ.  What, then, is the connection? 

I suppose for starters we might conclude that Luke is telling us, “If you read about Jesus in the Scriptures, you will know him.”  That does seem to be what he intends by writing his gospel in the first place.  We remember that back in the very first four verses of his gospel, he tells his readers that he has consulted many sources and has undertaken to compile them into an orderly account, in order that the readers might know the certainty of what they have been taught.  That is, if you want to know Jesus for a certainty, if you want to know the truth, you can find him in this gospel.[3]   Back when I was a teenager, I remember going to my pastor and asking for suggestions on how to pull out of a low point in my own faith.  He said, “Read Luke’s gospel, because it was written for people with just your concerns.”  Part of Luke’s point is to emphasize the importance of Scripture in knowing Jesus.  Remember that, on the journey to Emmaus, the two disciples did not recognize Jesus until after he had used the Old Testament to explain to them the significance of his life.

However, I suspect that Luke was making a bigger point.  For it was not on the road that the two disciples recognized Jesus.  Yes, he had interpreted the Scriptures to them, and this had set their minds on fire with excitement at the possibilities he had raised.  Surely they were amazed and energized in this encounter, but they did not recognize him until later.  They did not know him until they met him in the meal.  I do not believe it is an accident that Luke used almost identical words to describe this meal at Emmaus as he did the miracle of Jesus’ feeding of the five thousand and—most importantly—the last supper with his disciples.  Jesus took bread, he blessed it, he broke it, and he gave it to them.[4]  Certainly by the time Luke wrote his gospel, the Christian community had made a regular practice of celebrating the Lord’s Supper.  We see strong evidence of this throughout the New Testament.  One good example is First Corinthians, written 25 years before Luke’s gospel.  There Paul tells the Corinthians, “For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’”[5]

In other words, Luke is telling a story of what really happened to two disciples on the road to Emmaus, but he is telling it in a way that would emphasize to his readers a generation later that Jesus is known in the breaking of the bread.  Those whose eyes had been kept from recognizing him now were “opened,” Luke writes.  And in the next verse, after having recognized Jesus in the meal, those two disciples reflect, using the same word, how Jesus “opened” the Scriptures to them.  If we may be so bold, it is almost as if Luke is telling us that reading the Scriptures, by itself, is not enough.  They must be read with the person of Christ in mind.  The Old Testament interpretation that Jesus gave to these two disciples was different from the interpretation that was generally accepted among Jews of that day.  Following Jesus’ example, the Early Church read the Old Testament in light of Jesus and of their experience and knowledge of him. 

So do we find Jesus in Scripture, or are we able to interpret Scripture correctly only because we know Jesus?  I think Luke is telling us that neither of these movements is primary; rather, they are circular and continue to feed into each other.  We read Scripture and learn about the events of Jesus’ life, about his teachings, and about his sacrificial death and resurrection.  Then we come to the Table and experience what we have just read.  We taste his sacrifice, and we remember that what he taught, he lived.  When we meet him at the Table, Christ is not a character from a book but a real person, alive and present with us by the power of the Spirit.  Once Jesus had become known to Cleopas and his friend in the breaking of bread, Jesus abruptly disappeared.  But clearly his presence with them remained, as they hurried back to Jerusalem to tell the others.  It is as if Jesus were saying to them, “That is enough; from now on you will know me through Sacrament and Scripture.”  Indeed, he would be present with them always, just as he said.  And so it is with us.  He has vanished from our sight, but still we know him and he stays with us.[6]  Through the Lord’s Supper and Scripture, and back to the Lord’s Supper again, with each cycle, the love and the knowledge grow deeper.