Liefeld, W. L. (1984). Luke. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Vol. 8, pp. 1050–1055). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

2. On the Emmaus road (24:13–35)

The Emmaus story is a literary and spiritual jewel. It is at once a moving story, a testimony to the Resurrection, an explanation of the empty tomb, and an occasion for Luke to summarize several of his major themes. Despite the fact that it has to a superlative degree the ring of truth—what literary scholars call “verisimilitude”—some have considered it legendary (cf. Notes).

13–16 The opening words of v. 13 link this story with the entire Easter event. “Now” (kai idou) moves the reader’s attention to a new and important phase of Luke’s narrative. “That same day” ties the narrative to Jesus’ death and resurrection (cf. the sequence in 23:54, 56; 24:1). Two travelers are speaking together (vv. 14–15); so a valid witness is provided. A twofold witness is necessary according to Jewish law. Furthermore, the concept of witness is, as we have seen, important to Luke. Two witnesses (Simeon and Anna) bore testimony to the Messiah’s arrival (2:25–38); now the two travelers testify to a particular resurrection appearance of Jesus (24:35). The words “of them” (ex autōn, v. 13) do not clearly identify who the two are. They are not two of the Eleven (v. 9; cf. v. 33). Probably they are two of the followers of Jesus who had come to Jerusalem for the Passover. So they had been among the “disciples” who lauded Jesus on his triumphal entry to the city (19:39) and were now returning home. At any rate, the phrase “of them,” like the opening words of v. 13, establishes a continuity with the foregoing events.
The fact that this event occurs when the two disciples “were going” (ēsan poreuomenoi, v. 13) and “walked along” (syneporeueto, v. 15) continues the travel theme prominent in Luke, especially in his unique central section (9:51–19:44). That section begins as Jesus “resolutely set out” (to prosōpon estērisen tou poreuesthai) for Jerusalem (9:51). Now these two are leaving that same city. Shortly after the earlier journey to Jerusalem began, a man had approached Jesus regarding discipleship “as they were walking” (poreuomenōn autōn, 9:57). Now, after the Resurrection, Jesus approaches two disheartened followers as they are walking. Acts continues the theme of Jesus’ disciples traveling, going from Jerusalem to Rome (Paul, in ch. 28) and ultimately to the ends of the earth as “witnesses” (1:8). As for the identity of Emmaus, this is uncertain (cf. Notes). It is enough to know that it is a village near Jerusalem.
The two were talking about events surrounding Jesus’ resurrection. Between the lines of their dialogue, Luke shows their bewilderment. He uses two different verbs, one of them repeated: “they were talking” (hōmiloun, v. 14), “as they talked” (en tō homilein, v. 15), and “discussed” (syzētein). So the tension mounts in preparation for Jesus’ appearance. Luke introduces Jesus into the story with the emphatic “Jesus himself” (autos Iēsous); and his comment that Jesus “walked along with” (syneporeueto) them suggests to us, whether or not Luke intended it, Jesus’ presence with his disciples in the church age. The passive form in “were kept [ekratounto] from recognizing him” (v. 16) may be a “divine passive,” i.e., a means of connoting that an action, the subject of which is not mentioned, is actually the work of God. This device introduces the structural pattern of nonrecognition and recognition, which is central in this beautiful narrative.

17–18 Still another verb describes their discussion; antiballete (“discussed”) reflects the exchange of ideas (lit., “throwing back and forth”). The scene in vv. 14–17 is of a persistent but rather baffled attempt to understand the meaning of this most momentous weekend in history. Luke now uses a different word for walking (peripateō; cf. comments on vv. 13–16). Another mention of walking is certainly not necessary merely to convey that fact, and we may assume that there is a deliberate emphasis on that movement. Therefore it is striking that when Jesus addressed them, the two travelers stopped short and “stood still” (estathēsan). Their attitude at that point was gloomy, perhaps even sullen. Only one of the two (Cleopas) is named (v. 18), probably because he was known to at least some of Luke’s readers. One tradition identifies him as an uncle of Jesus, brother of Joseph, and father of Simeon, who became a leader of the Jerusalem church (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.11; cf. Ellis, Gospel of Luke, p. 894). This is not the same man as Clopas (John 19:25), though the two names are variant spellings of each other.

19–24 What follows constitutes an affirmation about the person and work of Christ that is of great significance for our understanding of Jesus and of Luke’s perception of him. Concerning the opening words, R.J. Dillon (From Eyewitnesses to Ministers of the Word, p. 114) observes, “This characterization, together with the assertion of full publicity amongst the people, contains pointed echoes of Luke’s introductory summary of Jesus’ ministry [in the power of the] Spirit (Luke 4:14; cp. Acts 10:38).” See comments above at 4:14 on the popular response to Jesus. The statement there about his reputation and power precedes the programmatic statement about his ministry under the impetus of the Spirit in 4:18–19. Acts 10:38 is Peter’s summary of Jesus’ powerful, Spirit-filled ministry (cf. Acts 2:22) and includes the statement “he went around doing good.” Peter then tells Cornelius, “We are witnesses of everything” (Acts 10:39), calling to mind Luke 1:2—“eyewitnesses and servants of the word.” The importance of the affirmation of the two disciples here in 24:19 must not in any way be underestimated. It is integral to Luke’s theology and purpose.
“He was a prophet” recalls the passage in chapter 4 just mentioned, where Jesus clearly identified himself with the prophets (4:24). While in Luke’s narrative Jesus is perceived as a prophet (e.g., 7:16; cf. Minear, Heal and Reveal pp. 102–21), the Resurrection affirmed him to be much more, as the two on the Emmaus road are to learn (e.g., v. 26, “the Christ … glory”). The word “prophet” does not appear in what Peter told Cornelius about Jesus (Acts 10:36–43). This is probably not because Cornelius was not Jewish, for Jesus was “Lord of all” (Acts 10:36), but because the word “prophet” was inadequate to comprehend all Jesus is. The term “prophet” is then not so much an invalid as an incomplete characterization of Jesus. Another of Luke’s favorite terms is “people” (laos), used throughout his Gospel for the responsive hearers in Israel (cf. 1:17, 68, 77; 2:10, 31–32). Later Luke will use laos of believing Gentiles (Acts 18:10).
The “chief priests and our rulers” (v. 20) stand in contrast to the “people” (v. 21) as elsewhere in Luke. It was they who “handed him over” for crucifixion. In v. 21 the words “but we” (hemēis de, emphatic) of the two disciples provide still another contrast. Unlike the rulers, they “hoped” that Jesus would bring deliverance. Observe that the verb is “hoped,” not “trusted” (as in KJV); there is a big difference between trusting Jesus as our Deliverer and Savior and hoping that he will prove to be our Deliverer and Savior. The past tense of “hoped” is, under the present circumstances, a pathetic reminder of their inability to recognize Jesus or to believe the report of the empty tomb. Their expectation that he would “redeem Israel” recalls the words of Zechariah in 1:68 (cf. 2:38; 21:28). In view of v. 46 and the passion predictions, the term “third day” had a significance to Luke’s readers. What should have been the day of hope realized was for them the day of hope extinguished.
The final (“in addition,” alla kai) incomprehensible element in the travelers’ report was the report of the empty tomb (v. 22). This looks back to vv. 1–12. Again Luke used the word “body” (v. 23, see comment above on v. 3). The mention of “angels” shows that this is what Luke meant by “men” in v. 4, which is in harmony with the other Gospels. Verse 24 recalls v. 12. In the last words in the report, “him they did not see,” the word “him” (auton) is placed in an emphatic position. The empty tomb without the appearance of Jesus himself was inadequate. It ironically becomes the last sad part of their confused response to Jesus’ question, “What things?” (v. 19).

25–27 The reader of the Greek text will immediately observe following the pronoun auton (“him”) in its emphatic position in v. 24 that it occurs in v. 25 (kai autos, “and he”; NIV, “he”) to refer (still emphatically) to the same person, though he remains unrecognized. “The Stranger seizes the platform from the confused disciple” (Dillon, Eyewitnesses, p. 132). Jesus, who in his transfiguration was superior to Moses and Elijah (9:28–36), now invokes Moses and the Prophets to substantiate the divine plan of his path from suffering to glory (v. 27). The word “all” (v. 25) is a warning not to treat the Scriptures selectively. Such selectivity could lead to the omission of the Messiah’s suffering (v. 26). But “the Christ” (Messiah) did “have to” (edei) suffer. The verb dei, meaning “it is necessary,” is one of Luke’s key words (cf. 2:49; 4:43; 13:16, 33; 15:32; 18:1; 19:5; 21:9; 22:7, 37; 24:7, 44, along with the basic passion prediction of 9:22 that occurs also in Matthew and Mark). The future glory of the Christ (v. 26) was mentioned in the context of the passion prediction, ascribed there to the “Son of Man” (9:26; cf. 21:27). Some have argued that here “glory” is to be understood as a substitute expression for “was raised from the dead” (cf. Dillon, Eyewitnesses, pp. 141ff.). More likely it refers to the honor anticipated in the OT for the Messiah and attributed to the Son of Man in the verses just referred to. The unexpected element in Christ’s messiahship was his suffering. On the other hand, one could hardly argue that Christ’s glory excludes the Resurrection. Paul quoted the OT to prove the necessity of both the suffering and the resurrection of the Messiah (Acts 17:2–3). “Beginning with” (v. 27) probably implies that Jesus drew on all the Scriptures but principally on the Law (Gen-Deut) and the Prophets (Marshall, Gospel of Luke, p. 897). The central subject of these OT passages is “himself.”
For several reasons vv. 25–27 are vitally important. With great clarity they show that the sufferings of Christ, as well as his glory, were predicted in the OT and that all the OT Scriptures are important. They also show that the way the writers of the NT used the OT had its origin, not in their own creativity, but in the postresurrection teachings of Jesus, of which this passage is a paradigm. The passage also exemplifies the role of the OT in Luke’s own theology. Although he does not directly quote the OT Scriptures as many times as Matthew does, nevertheless he alludes frequently to the OT, demonstrating that what God has promised must take place and employing a “proof-from-prophecy” apologetic for the truth of the gospel.

28–32 The invitation for Jesus to stay with the two follows the ancient custom of hospitality. As the afternoon drew on and suppertime approached, the stranger would need food and lodging. Jesus had “acted as if” (prosepoiēsato) he were going to continue his journey (v. 28). The verb prospoieō, in spite of well-meaning efforts to weaken it to avoid any thought of deceit on Jesus’ part (e.g., Plummer, in loc.), often means “pretend” (BAG, LSJ, MM, s.v.). Such a gesture would, like the invitation itself, be appropriate in the custom of those days. While it is probably true, as Plummer says, that Jesus would have gone on, had he not been invited to stay, this polite action seems intended to draw out a very strong response from Cleopas and his companion, who indeed then “urged him strongly” (parebiasanto) to stay (v. 29). In other contexts this verb can mean to force someone to do something.
The recognition scene is the third high point in this narrative, the first two being the long reply of Cleopas and his companion to Jesus’ question and Jesus’ exposition of the OT’s teaching about himself. While from a church perspective some have wrongly seen the Lord’s Supper in the breaking of the bread, we must also realize that a table scene is characteristic of Luke and probably of his special source material (cf. 5:29; 7:36; 14:1, 7, 12, 15–16; and, less obviously, 10:38–40). What is remarkable is that Jesus took the role of the host and broke the bread, giving thanks (v. 30). Of course this recalls the feeding of the five thousand (9:10–17, N.B. v. 16) as well as the Last Supper (22:19), though it was not a celebration of the latter.
As to whether it was through the actual breaking of bread or through divine intervention that the moment of truth came and the two disciples recognized Jesus, the answer must be that it was through both. Whether the two noticed the nail scars (Luke does not say they did), Jesus’ acting as host led to the recognition. At the same time, the passive verb diēnoichthēsan (“were opened”) implies divine action (v. 31), as was the case when Jesus’ identity was hidden from them (v. 16). This provides uniformity in the structure and theological meaning, as God is the revealer of the risen Christ. Note the repetition of Jesus’ opening “the Scriptures” (v. 32) and “their minds” (v. 45).
The narrative ends abruptly as Jesus disappeared and Cleopas and his companion reflected on their feelings of intense inner warmth (cf. Ps 39:3; Jer 20:9; the vocabulary differs but something similar may be in mind). (For a survey of interpretations of kaiomenē [“burning”], see Marshall, Gospel of Luke, pp. 898–99.) The specific occasion of these feelings is the presence of the Lord and his expounding the OT.

33–35 The words “at once” (autē tē hōra, lit., “in the same hour,” v. 33) continue the chronology of the resurrection day (cf. comment at v. 13). The reunion with the Eleven brought assurance to all, as the two disciples fulfilled their role as witnesses (vv. 34–35). They especially spoke of recognizing Jesus when he broke bread with them (v. 35).

Notes

13. The historicity of the Emmaus story has often been challenged (e.g., H.D. Betz, “The Origin and Nature of Christian Faith According to the Emmaus Legend,” Int 23 [1969]: 32–46). There are, indeed, elements of the story many find difficult to accept—not merely the inability of the two to recognize Jesus, but the very appearance of Jesus after his death. But this difficulty relates to the concept one has of the Resurrection itself and of the possibility of a supernatural work of God in the nonrecognition and recognition sequence. There are also similarities to elements in other ancient narratives: We must, however, be careful about drawing conclusions from works written after Luke was. Also we “must not invoke such parallels prematurely, on the basis of mere resemblance, as instruments of interpretation” (Dillon, Eyewitnesses, pp. 73f.). It is impossible to prove or disprove the historicity of a story such as this that exists in no other literature and that, unlike the Resurrection, has produced no effect capable of investigation. Apart from the consideration of alleged legendary elements (remembering that issues of form do not settle issues of historicity, cf. Marshall, Gospel of Luke, p. 891), such issues will be decided on the basis of the setting of the storm both in the resurrection narrative and within Luke’s carefully researched work, with care not to reject what one may consider, a priori, difficult to accept.
13. The location of Emmaus, “about seven miles from Jerusalem,” is of minor concern to the expositor but of historical interest. Attention centers on several possible sites, but certainty is not possible at this time. Two sites are located at an approximately correct distance (one about nine miles away; the other is even closer to Luke’s “sixty stadia”—approximately seven miles). They are Abu-Ghosh and El-Qubeibeh. There is little evidence, however, that either is the site.
Another place, Motza-Illit, is only three and one-half miles from Jerusalem. To identify this with the village in Luke, one has to assume that Luke’s figure of sixty stadia applied to a round trip. In Jesus’ day it was only a “village” (κώμη, kōmē), precisely Luke’s word. Both Josephus and the Talmud mention it, the first as Emmaus and the second as Motza. It is very possible that the Semitic sound of Ha-Motza became Ammaous or Emmaus A Roman colony was established there later in the first century, and so it is now also known as Qaloniya or Colonia. Evidence has come to light of a Byzantine church there, indicating that the site was reverenced. This may well be the true location.
There is still another site, much better known: Imwas (by Latrun), known also as Nicopolis probably since the time of Elagabulus (A.D. 218–22). It was prominent as the place of a great victory of Judas Maccabeus in the second century B.C., described in 1 Macc 3–4. The site continued to be well known throughout Christian history, and it naturally has been favored by many as the NT Emmaus. One serious problem is that it is not 60 but 160 stadia away (a problem Sinaiticus and other MSS seem to have addressed by changing the number to 160). This distance, however, seems long, though not impossible, for the two disciples to have traveled in both directions (cf. v. 33) It would have meant a round trip total of 30 miles in one busy day, with the return trip started no later than early evening. It is possible that there were actually two places known as Emmaus in Jesus’ day: the village, hardly known, 3 1/2 miles or 30 stadia away, and the city, 160 stadia or 19 miles away. It was perhaps the former to which the disciples went on the Resurrection day. See J. Monson, A Survey of the Geographical and Historical Setting of the Bible (Jerusalem: Institute for Holy Land Studies, 1977), pp. 3f., of Benjamin Field Study section; R.M. Mackowski, “Where Is Biblical Emmaus?” Science et Esprit 32 (1980): 93–103.