To see Jesus without seeing Him. On the Emmaus disciples (2)

The story of the Emmaus disciples is beautiful in more than one way. Luke as a masterful author knew how to compose his text.

Part of its beauty is to be found in the way Luke balances the story:

The story begins and ends with a description of the two disciples on the road to and from their home village. In verse 13 we find the first remark: they travel on the day of the resurrection (“that same day”) to their village, seven miles “from” Jerusalem, talking all the way with each other. It ends with the similar remark, but now in a reverse order. They return “to” Jerusalem (verses 33 to 35). They leave “from Jerusalem” and return “to Jerusalem,” but now, at the end, they are not talking to each other in despair. They talk or witness to the disciples about their meeting with Jesus. With this beginning and and, neatly balanced, Luke describes to us two disciples who were “on the road” (verse 32) and who had an experience of Jesus “on the way” (verse 35). This is the first, outer “frame” of the episode: we have two travelling disciples. Once again, this fits in well with Luke’s Gospel and with Acts. In the Gospel Jesus travels from Luke 9:51 to Jerusalem “to be taken to heaven” – which finally happens in Luke 24:59. So, Luke’s story of the Emmaus disciples, read in context, is framed by a travel narrative which tells the reader a deeper story, that is, that the two has given up on Jesus. He was going to Jerusalem, as we read in Luke 9:51, for his ascension. They, at the moment this special moment was about to take place after the resurrection, gave up on it. Read from the perspective of Acts in which the disciples leave Jerusalem for the ends of the earth with the message of the resurrected Jesus, they almost missed out on the empowerment of the disciples to become world missionaries (Ac.1:6-8). This episode of the two disciples is one of the many travel stories in Luke-Acts, but it is a dramatic story of people who journey in darkness and despair – who give up on God. It is hard not to see this as symbolic of the spiritual journey of the disciples, and, through them, of our own spiritual journey. When we experience shock in recognizing our own faces in the faces of the two disciples, we now know more why we are shocked. We are often travelling away from the One who is our hope. We often give up on God.

The story then contains a further, inner frame: this frame tells about Jesus joining them, but without being recognised by them (verses 15-16). There is the strange observation: “they were kept from recognizing him.” The second part of the frame is found in verses 31-32 and it is in a neat balance with verses 15-16: During the breaking of the bread, their eyes were opened. They recognised Jesus, but he disappears.

There is still a third frame which is found within the second frame: At a certain point in the journey, Jesus asks them about their discussions. He takes the initiative. Then the two of them stop, their faces somber (vese 17). In verse 28-29, Luke inserts a description which balances with this part: this time, though, the two disciples take the initiative. Jesus wants to travel further, but they approach Jesus and asks him to stay with them. They then sit at the table where Jesus breaks bread for them.

In the middle of the story is a direct conversation: the two disciples are now engaged in a discussion with Jesus. It is highly ironic: they talk about the absent Jesus in the presence of Jesus! The reader is amazed: how is it possible that they can speak with Jesus without recognising him? And they keep on talking with Jesus for a long time. From verse 19 to verse 24 they speak about Jesus, and especially about the resurrection. Half or their little speach is about the empty tomb. The speech ends even more ironical: they tell of the visit to the tomb and add, “but him they did not see.” Jesus then responds by explaining the Scriptures – something he did so many times before. The Word of God is explained. With them, Jesus meditates on the meaning of the Word (verses 25-27).

So, looking at this neatly composed story, we have a narrative about two disciples, travelling from the place where the divine events were revealed to them, speaking intensely about the resurrection as they were approached by Jesus – whom they do not recognise. They talk with Jesus about Jesus. They are taught by Jesus about Jesus from Scripture. And yet, they fail to realise what is happening here. They are given one last opportunity as Jesus leaves: He tests them by creating the impression that He will continue with his journey without them. And, they invite him to share communion with them. In the night, in their darkness, Jesus responds to them. He gives them a further symbol: they experience the breaking of the bread. And, finally, their eyes are opened – only to experience Jesus’ absence again. Now, however, they return with the news that they had seen Jesus when he broke the bread for them.

From this composition we can determine the purpose of the Emmaus episode in more depth. Previously the other disciples saw an empty tomb. They were not transformed by that experience. They did not see Jesus (verse 24). Now the story of Jesus is finally concluded: the two disciples have experienced Jesus, unlike the other disciples. The two saw him on their way from Jerusalem, but even this encounter did not transform them immediately. The moment of transformation happened only later when they “recognised” him. They had to move beyond talking, beyond seeing, to recognising.

By meditating on the composition of this episode, we begin to understand something more about our shock at our own unbelief. We do not believe – we are the two disciples, because we see Jesus without “recognising” him. One can live with Jesus for years, hear of such wonderful things as his resurrection from the dead. And yet, one can be without Jesus. Something more must happen to those who believe than merely speaking about Jesus or seeing him.

By reading Scripture so closely, by looking at how carefully Luke composed this story, we are brought to contemplate contemplation. What is it that brings us to that point that we no longer merely “see” Jesus, but “recognise” Him, encounter Him, experience Him as the divine Presence?