24 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.” 25 Then he said to them, “Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! 26 Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures. [Luke 24:24-27, NRSV]
In a previous post we talked about the parallelism between Jesus and Moses as suffering prophets, mighty in words and deeds who nevertheless had to suffer rejection and death in order to accomplish God’s plan and bring redemption to Israel. Drawing on such a parallelism, Carlo M. Martini reflects on a pattern of death which is followed by disappearance and yet, crucially, a continued presence is preserved through permanent memory in the case of Moses but, additionally, through resurrection and beyond in the case of Jesus. He writes this in his seventh meditation in Through Moses to Jesus: The Way of the Paschal Mystery (1988).
Another author drawn to Luke’s pattern of prophets mighty in words and deeds suffering public rejection and death is Denis Mcbride. In Emmaus, the Gracious Visit of God According to Luke (1991), Mcbride underlines the parallels in Stephen’s speech in chapter 7 of Acts. Stephen speaks of YHWH sending Moses:
- 34 ‘I have surely seen the ill-treatment of my people that are in Egypt and heard their groaning, and I have come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send you to Egypt.’
- 35 “This Moses whom they refused, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’ God sent as both ruler and deliverer by the hand of the angel that appeared to him in the bush.
- 36 He led them out, having performed wonders and signs in Egypt and at the Red Sea, and in the wilderness for forty years.
- 39 Our fathers refused to obey him, but thrust him aside, and in their hearts they turned to Egypt.
Both Moses and Jesus were mighty prophet-redeemers. Through them, God visited upon His people with salvation. In the exodus of both of them, their greatness in words and deeds was indisputably acknowledged. Yet they both suffered rejection and death which precipitated redemption to Israel. Naturally, when Jesus began his explanation to the two on the road, he began with Moses.
In the road to Emmaus narrative, the two disciples’ account discloses an inability on their part to progress from their experience of Jesus as “a prophet mighty in words and deeds” to the fulfillment of the messianic hope of Israel through the suffering and death of Jesus. In that inability, the disciples fell short on two counts.
- First, they have a defective Christological understanding which is unable to grapple with a Messiah who has to suffer and die. Their desire for a victorious military-saviour has placed a veil over their eyes and cotton wool in their ears. They had not understood what he meant when he said he must be in Jerusalem for the completion of his mission. To comprehend the work of the Messiah, the disciples’ knowledge must include the paschal mystery. They needed to see clearly the non-negotiable place of suffering in the divine scheme of human salvation.
- Second, the disciples had been selective concerning the old prophecies relative to the Messiah. They have chosen to remember the promises related to a victorious Messiah, and to ignore the prophecies related to his sufferings. They were familiar with the prophets, and they have heard reports from the women about the empty tomb. Still, these did not convince them. If they had truly accepted the message of the prophets, they ought to have accepted the women’s report as well. They did not.
Cleopas and companion’s attitude of disbelief echoes the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in which Abraham says: “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead” (Luke 16:31). It stands to argument that it would be futile to reveal himself as Christ to the two disciples on the road. Instead, he would need to open their eyes to see the clear witnesses in Holy Scriptures, beginning with Moses and all the prophets. With seven miles to cover, they had four hours to talk.
Jesus has sized up the problem. The dejected statement of lost hope by the disciples in v.21 “But we had hoped” has actually summarized the hope expressed in the Lukan infancy narrative – Simeon who exclaimed “mine eyes have seen the salvation of the Lord” in 2:30, and “all flesh shall see the salvation of the Lord” by the voice crying in the wilderness in 3:6. These joyful expectations for the redemption of Israel in the infancy narrative have been passed on well, as they reappeared again in the expressed hope of the disciples on the road to Emmaus. But they, like the other disciples, could not accept Jesus’ rejection in Jerusalem. The recognition at the breaking of the bread will cause a rebirth of this hope for Israel, but here and now, Jesus’ first task is not to immediately reveal himself to them. What is important for Jesus to do is to first expose their deficiency in understanding (“Was it not necessary …?”) and instruct them on the theological appropriateness of his suffering, death and resurrection (… that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?” – v.26). This “necessity” is theo–logical in that it is rooted in God’s purpose as it seeks fulfillment in the world.
- The Messiah in his earthly ministry lived the life of a prophet, and prophets, the Israelites well knew, were regularly rejected, persecuted and even killed.
- What were the texts Jesus referred to? Luke’s global references to “all the scriptures” and “beginning with Moses and all the prophets” suggest more than just a few selected texts. Instead, we may infer that Jesus in verse 27 is interpreting scriptures by pointing to a pattern of prophetic destiny revealed in the lives of Moses and the prophets, as well as the psalmists.
- It is an ironic mystery that rejection and shameful death are the means by which Jesus enters his glory. Luke underlines this irony in Acts by a repeated contrast between what the Jerusalemites, acting in ignorance did and what God did in raising and exalting Jesus (see, e.g., Acts 2:23-24, 36).
- Confronting the human purpose to eliminate Jesus, therefore, there prevailed a stronger divine purpose that could use blind opposition to thwart human plans. This understanding eases our frequent question as to why God can leave the prophet-Messiah exposed to human resistance, like the prophets before him, for in this way, God in His wisdom achieved His ultimate saving purpose. (See this line of analysis in Robert C. Tannehill, Luke, 354-357.)
Once we grasp that, we can better confront failure to achieve fulfillment in all areas of our human endeavours. Our faith does not promise that we shall not fail. Rather, precisely because we experience failures, we, like the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, will find cause for hope and deliverance outside of ourselves. So our faith generates patience, Pope Francis says, as he comments on a book on the theology of failure by John J. Navone titled “Triumph through Failure: A Theology of the Cross” (1984).
- The Holy Father reflects on times when “our lives do not call so much for our ‘doing’ as for our ‘enduring,’ for bearing up with our own limitations and those of others. Being patient means accepting the fact that it takes time to mature and develop. Living with patience allows for time to integrate and shape our lives.”
Copyright © Dr. Jeffrey & Angie Goh, April 2021. All rights reserved.
You are most welcome to respond to this post. Email your comments to jeffangiegoh@gmail.com. You can also be dialogue partners in this Ephphatha Coffee-Corner Ministry by sending us questions for discussion.