|
||
|
The Road to Emmaus
Text: Luke 24:13-32
● Mark’s account of the resurrection (which is widely accepted as the
earliest available), ends with the women running, panic-stricken from the
scene, in stunned silence. (2) of the most reliable manuscripts containing
Mark’s writings from the 4th century are said to end at verse 8.
Some scholars believe that Mark’s ending is missing, with some
suggesting that the last column or page of the book had been torn away.
● I suspect that most of your Bibles will include the
“alternate endings” with some
form of explanation. Those endings were offered some time later by copyists
who couldn’t believe that Mark would choose to leave the story there.
● Still others have suggested that Mark’s version was intentional, leaving
the women to deal with the inner-disturbances and processing the
unlikely/unexpected chain of events.
● I don’t pretend to have the definitive answer, but I think that endings
like this are often intriguing because they do what a good story should do…
draw you into it.
Of recent, there have been video/computer games and movies created
which provide not only the ‘stock’
ending, but also offer
‘alternate endings’. The storyline brings you to a decisive moment where
any number of responses are available, each based on the individual’s
understanding and interpretation of the plot.
● I am not suggesting that the Bible always be read so ‘subjectively’, but I
am suggesting that we should allow the absence of any definitive conclusion
to engage us.
For example, Jonah is the only
book in the Bible to end with a question. The story is not meant to be
conclusive; it’s not meant to provide the ‘stock-ending’, but simply to
leave us with our thoughts… to leave us with our heart.
● For many of us here, our faith was developed in the context of proofs and
arguments and evidences, all determined not only to solidify our own faith,
but to win the debate. But, as we read the gospel accounts of the
crucifixion and resurrection, we realize that that did not seem to be their
intent: they did not neatly package the details as definitive proof.
● In fact, the overriding concern of the writers seems to be that the
disciples’ perception of these
events had to be enlarged; their old measures for understanding the way
that God and the world function were
not necessarily ‘wrong’, just
‘inadequate.’
Our predispositions (worldview) often prevent us from seeing the way things
really are. Luke is suggesting that the disciples were trying to apply
existing parameters to something that defied convention (i.e.
‘righty-tighty, lefty-loosey’
doesn’t always apply: if you’re committed to that, you may expend a
great deal of energy and still be frustrated).
● Fast-forward to the road to
Emmaus: It’s late afternoon of the first Easter day. They have
experienced all sorts of turbulent events. They are engaged in conversation
by this stranger who seems somewhat oblivious to the events of the previous
few days.
“We had hoped…”
They have been living out of a story, a controlling narrative that had been
built up through actual historic events and prophetic writings. The
crucifixion of Jesus was the final devastation of their hopes. Notice that
their hopes were directly linked to how they were telling the story.
“Beginning with Moses and all the
prophets…”
We cannot assume that Jesus attempted to
“proof-text” his death and
resurrection, pulling a verse from Genesis, and one from Exodus and a couple
from Isaiah in order to say,
“There. See?”
Luke is demonstrating that the story only makes sense as it is told as the
great finale to the story being told by Moses and the prophets: how the
Creator God was going about restoring the world through Israel, with that
action focused on Jesus as Israel’s and the world’s true representative.
It was not a new story, but a new way of seeing the story which actually
expanded the possibilities for them.
“They were prevented from
recognizing him…”
That statement has always captured my imagination. Maybe this is like the
“Undercover Boss”. In order to
interact with them in ways that are authentic and unedited, he must not be
recognized, otherwise, they may allow themselves to offer the
‘expected response’ rather
than the honest one. Jesus never required that anyone make a confession with
their mouths that their hearts could not support.
Here’s what I love about Jesus (which, ironically is the same thing that
frustrates me about Jesus): he never
used his ‘God-powers’ to overwhelm anyone into belief.
For Jesus, it was important that their faith be formed and informed by the
story and not just the extraordinary display of supernatural power [even
those could be dismissed].
He offers no explanation; he refuses to dismiss their feelings and pain as
inappropriate. For (7) miles, he walks with them and, with amazing
restraint, he simply listens.
It’s easy not to recognize Jesus as present with us when our circumstances
seem to be telling a different story.
Jesus could only be known in the story; any other way of understanding him
would have been to detach him from the story of God and see this episode as
a departure and not fulfillment [this is not the way the story was meant to
go].
“Didn’t our hearts burn within us as he talked with us and explained the
Scripture to us?”
v.32
The change of heart was the result of having their story altered;
explained to them in such a way as to provide the ‘alternate ending’… the
one they had not expected.
We often make the mistake of taking the incidental moments of our lives and
attempting to ‘fit them into’ the story, when stories are meant to provide
the means by which we interpret the circumstances. We discover who we are by
the stories we tell.
● If we are ‘constructing’ our stories circumstantially, then life gets
reduced to this random and often chaotic series of events.
‘Story’ provides the context
by which I might interpret those events and explain reality (i.e. “Who am I?
Where am I? Why am I here? What happened?”)
If my story fails to explain these events in a satisfactory way, I
experience the turmoil and disillusionment characterized in the (2) on the
Emmaus Road.
Circumstantial evidence is a poor way to attempt to interpret a
sovereign God.
● In order to be a ‘controlling’
story, it must address the issues. For example, the ‘progress’ story
does not/can not deal with
evil. If we are ‘progressing’, how do we explain the evening news?
The contrast in our approach is not between ‘faith and facts’ (subject to
interpretation), but ‘story vs. story’.
● Psalm 42-43 provides a means by which we might even allow for adversity
and misunderstanding.
“…my tears have been my food… why so
downcast, soul? Put your hope in God.”
● No matter how many ‘stories’ or ‘sub-plots’ there are in the Scripture,
they all converge on one main theme:
“…that God was, in Christ,
reconciling the world to himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19). The “Creator” is
also the “Savior/Rescuer”, harmoniously re-uniting the life of heaven and
the life of earth. |
