Sermon 8th May 2011

Sermon Easter 3 Taupo

Luke 24:13-35

Now on that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, and talking with each other about all these things that had happened. While they were talking and discussing, Jesus himself came near and went with them, but their eyes were kept from recognizing him. And he said to them, ‘What are you discussing with each other while you walk along?’ They stood still, looking sad. Then one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answered him, ‘Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there in these days?’ He asked them, ‘What things?’ They replied, ‘The things about Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how our chief priests and leaders handed him over to be condemned to death and crucified him. But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things took place. Moreover, some women of our group astounded us. They were at the tomb early this morning, and when they did not find his body there, they came back and told us that they had indeed seen a vision of angels who said that he was alive. Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but they did not see him.’ Then he said to them, ‘Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?’ Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.

As they came near the village to which they were going, he walked ahead as if he were going on. But they urged him strongly, saying, ‘Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over.’ So he went in to stay with them. When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight. They said to each other, ‘Were not our hearts burning within us while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the scriptures to us?’ That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together. They were saying, ‘The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon!’ Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread.

I recently had a discussion about whether the bible is true or not. My response was that it was the wrong question. The discussion was initiated by reference to the historian Robin Lane Fox’s book: The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible. Fox fails to appreciate the type of literature he is reading, and to simply treat the bible as an historical document is simplistic. The better question to ask is what does the story mean? Or I should say “stories” for the bible is full of stories. We do not ask, for example, whether Shakespeare’s Richard III is true or not. We might ask whether some of the portraits of the characters are historically accurate, but such a question is not what Shakespeare is on about. Let me quote from Wikipedia:

There is no doubt that Shakespeare drew heavily on Sir Tomas More's account of Richard III as a criminal and tyrant as inspiration for his own rendering. This influence, especially as it relates to the role of divine punishment in Richard's rule of England, reaches its height in the voice of Margaret. Janis Lull suggests that "Margaret gives voice to the belief, encouraged by the growing Calvinism of the Elizabethan era, that individual historical events are determined by God, who often punishes evil with (apparent) evil".

Thus it seems possible that Shakespeare, in conforming to the growing "Tudor Myth" of the day, as well as taking into account new theologies of divine action and human will becoming popular in the wake of the Protestant Reformation sought to paint Richard as the final curse of God on England in punishment for the deposition of Richard II in 1399. Irving Ribner argued that "the evil path of Richard is a cleansing operation which roots evil out of society and restores the world at last to the God-ordained goodness embodied in the new rule of Henry VII".

Now I have begun this discussion with Shakespeare to indicate that if you simply ask the question: “Is the story true or not?” then it is the wrong question. You might ask: “Is it historically credible?” and I think that too misses the point. The question rather is: what are you to make of history?” If you want to put it using the idea of truth, then the question is, what do I make of this story that might provide some truth or truths for how I might think about my life or how I might think how society or the nation is getting on?

So bearing that in mind, let’s look at the Emmaus story. We have here a story that Luke has inherited from an earlier tradition and embellished it with his own way of writing. It is a narrative reflecting the literary style and interest of Luke. It contains an appearance story of the risen Christ, and because there is no other story like it in the NT, it is rather difficult to say what kind of story it is. Perhaps the closest description we can give it is it is a recognition story.

Two men, one called Cleopas, are walking from Jerusalem to Emmaus. The village is close enough to Jerusalem for them to be able to return within the day.

(Just as an aside, the commentaries discuss the difficulty of establishing the geographical accuracy of where Emmaus was. It is an interesting irrelevance, if you take the story as a recognition story.)

While they are walking along, they are joined by a third person, whom they do not recognise. The person has human form, yet once they recognise him, he vanishes. We can note that this is a different conception of the resurrection state of the Lord from other resurrection accounts.

While they are walking along, they are sad, and at the stranger’s promptings, Cleopas tells them about the death of a prophet, who they had hoped would redeem Israel. However on the third day, some women astounded them by telling them that they went to the tomb, but there was no body there. The women had a vision from some angels, who said he was alive. The stranger then interpreted the scriptures about Jesus. As they came to the village, the stranger walked as if to go on ahead, but the two invited him in to stay with them. At the table the stranger took the bread, and he blessed and broke the bread, and as he was giving it to them, they recognised him. At this point, he vanished. They described the experience as if their hearts were burning. So they returned to Jerusalem, and shared their story with the eleven, and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread.

Now what is important in this story is how the disciples knew him in the breaking of the bread, and not by seeing him. We have in verse 16:

but their eyes were kept from recognizing him.

We are given no explanation why or how that might have happened. Perhaps their blindness, as it were, came from their distress or grief. But right up until the moment Jesus vanishes, it is a story that unfolds in a completely natural way. But then Jesus breaks the bread, they recognise him, and he vanishes.

It is a story of recognition through the interpretation of scripture, and in the moment in which bread was broken. The story will become for Luke a classic way of referring to the Eucharist or the ritual we call Communion.

The story is about the experience of these two disciples. Luke has inserted into their walk, the resurrection narratives of the women finding no body, and their vision of some angels that said he was alive. But the crux of the story is that in the breaking of the bread, they recognised him.

So if you ask the question: “How can I know about Jesus?” the answer given here in Luke’s account – the answer is - in the breaking of the bread. And the suggestion is that we too, thousands of years later, can find and recognise Jesus in a similar manner.

Let me conclude by putting it this way. We are all on a journey of some kind in our lives. Sometimes we are blind to the important things of life. We just miss recognising what it is that can make life worth living. As we journey through life, we walk with companions. The word companion can be thought of as “com” equals ‘with’, and “panion” equals ‘bread’. A companion is a fellow traveller who shares their bread. But we need to shift our perception to overcome our blindness. If we can understand the stories of faith, then we will see and recognise things differently. To put it using metaphor: Our hearts will burn within us. When we invite the stranger into our lives in an act of hospitality, when Jesus breaks bread with us, we will recognise him.

John Howell