Sermon Tone Analysis

INTRO: Why do we say “All roads lead to Rome”?

At one point in history, even the very timeframe of the life of Christ, the city of Rome was the center of the known world, such that the Roman Empire had developed 29 major roads to all 113 provinces under their rule.

Every road found its end in Rome.

It is just so with the Bible: all roads in Scripture lead to Jesus.

(not explicitly or slavishly in every text or context, but it is clear that God’s granting sinful humanity access to himself through Jesus is ultimately the center of it)

In our usage “all roads lead to Rome” has come to mean that there are many methods to get the same result, that there are multiple ways to reach the same outcome.

While that may be true with some things, like reaching the correct math answer (it doesn’t matter what method you use, as long as you come up with the right answer), it is not the case with faith in God.

Not all roads of human religion lead to God.

In fact, all other roads lead away from God; the Lord Jesus Christ is the only path to God. (Why do we know that’s true?

Bc God himself has said it in his revealed word.)

What that means for us is...

Until we are changed by the crucified and resurrected Christ, we are inevitably heading the wrong way.

We must see and embrace Christ for who he is to reverse our direction and our destiny, to return to God instead of rebelling against him.

In our text for today, Luke takes advantage of a literal historical situation about a journey on a road and a reversal of direction to make us think deeply about how encountering the resurrected Christ as presented in the Scriptures completely reverses our understanding and our course.

As we continue, I’ll remind you that ancient writers had an affinity for irony, and Luke appears to love dramatic irony in particular (where the audience [reader] knows something that those living in the action do not know, or at least not yet fully realize).

We have grown accustomed to the use of this device in good literature, theater, and movies.

But why does Luke emphasize this specific appearance and present it this way?

That’s what we hope to understand (and be sure we apply to our lives).

Confirmation of the resurrected Christ, testified in all the Scriptures, reverses our hopeless and wrong-headed direction and leads us to conviction and confession that he is Lord.

There are 4 Parts to the episode: Meeting, Conversation, Meal of Revelation, Return to Report (So we’ll look at each of those parts and be sure we ultimately connect the dots to the big picture of a reversal of thinking and a reversal of direction when they finally realize that they have been talking to the resurrected Christ.)

First we have a…

When a chance meeting is more than it seems (vv.

13-16)

Two journeying on the road are joined by a third, whose presence alters everything.

Despite how this chance meeting at first appears, it turns out to be life-changing.

- that same day, Sunday, first day of the week (the same day that these other crazy reports from the women have come to the disciples)

- two of them: one is named Cleopas (v.

18), the other remains anonymous.

It begs the question as to whether Luke’s source did not know who the other disciple was.

Some have made suggestions, but they don’t hold water: Cleopas’s wife (oh foolish ones is not explicitly masculine), but that would have been perhaps easy and obvious to remember and relate.

Peter?… really doesn’t make sense with 24:34.

Another person named Simon.

All of these suggestions are pure conjecture.

At times our speculation is literally of no value.

We don’t know bc Luke didn’t tell us, probably bc he didn’t know… another mark of veracity/authenticity of the way Luke relates what he has researched from eye-witness accounts, and tradition already being carefully circulated among Christians.

- It seems clear these two are themselves disciples of Jesus but specifically from among the 11 apostles, although they are known to them (as we see in later verses).

- walking from Jerusalem to Emmaus, the site to which Luke refers is no longer known.

More than one place in Palestine had gone by this name; it cannot be the same one Josephus describes from the intertestamental period.

We know that bc this town of Emmaus is only…

- sixty stadia (Gk) was about 7 miles, 11km from Jerusalem - They could make this walk in about 2 hours (a bit less or a bit more, depending on pace).

- already conversing themselves (word suggesting an emotional dialogue) about all the things that had happened in just the last few days, vv.

20-24

- Jesus himself joins them on their journey, but they don’t recognize him.

- It would not have been strange for them to allow a fellow Jewish traveler to accompany them, perhaps assuming him another pilgrim to the Passover feast in Jerusalem now heading home.

What is strange to Luke’s reader is that they don’t immediately perceive that it’s Jesus himself.

The passive voice in v. 16 (were kept) gives us the explanation.

God providentially kept them from initially knowing that it was the risen Lord.

(Yes, Jesus’ glorified body is somewhat different than his pre-glorified one [which was like ours], but now his new one is without imperfection, yet still material, even though he can also apparently transfer himself instantaneously from one location to another.

…a body more like when he was temporarily transfigured, Lk 9:28-36.

So it’s possible that his transformation to perfection does make it somewhat harder to immediately recognize him (cf.

Mary Magdalene in Jn 20:14).

But here it seems plain that, especially as they are given so much time with him, God prevented them from recognizing him until the meal.)

We, the audience, know this chance meeting is more than it seems, but they do not yet see clearly enough to have a reversal of understanding and direction.

So we listen with anticipation to the walking conversation as the interaction unfolds, still waiting for the mic-drop moment.

But in this entire conversation that realization never comes… yet.

What the interaction accomplishes is for these two disciples to admit and explain that they are disappointed and confused, so Jesus is then able to correct their disillusionment with evidence from Scripture, giving them hope that they ought to believe the reports that Christ is risen.

When a friendly conversation turns from disappointment & confusion to correction & hope (vv.

17-27)

This conversation (in vv.

17-27) has three movements: First Jesus draws the information out of them, then they explain the events (along with their consternation and confusion), and finally the stranger corrects their lack of belief in the resurrection by showing them that these things (his suffering and subsequent exaltation) were God’s plan as revealed in the Scriptures.

- Jesus, still unknown to them, initiates conversation by asking what they’ve been discussing/debating.

They stop walking and clearly display sadness.

(You know from experience what it’s like to observe in others a strong emotion being plainly evident… and not just with kids.

:-)) We find out that the source/cause of their sadness is their disillusionment and disappointment with all that has taken place concerning Jesus.

- Cleopas responds with surprise that this stranger wouldn’t just assume they’re discussing all the crazy stir surrounding Jesus that has recently taken place in Jerusalem.

“Can you be the only visitor who isn’t aware?”

The suggestion is that nearly everyone would have been talking about it.

- ‘Have you had your head in the sand?

Are you the only person who is ignorant of what has taken place in recent days in Jerusalem?’

- Jesus does indeed feign ignorance, pretends to not know (reminiscent of God asking Adam in the garden where he was) in order to continue the conversation and draw them out: “What things?”

v. 19a, eg.

‘What sort of things have happened?’

He wants to hear these two express their comprehension of what has happened.

(so that he can correct and explain a different and better understanding)

* Now the two of them launch into what must be an emotional and emphatic presentation of who and what had taken place.

(19b-21a) - Their description of Jesus as a prophet was right but incomplete, and undoubtedly mirrors what many of Jesus’ followers were feeling: confused bc Jesus was indeed a great prophet whom they clearly perceived as having authority from God (in word and deed), and whom they thought was to be the Messiah.

They had high regard and high hopes for Jesus, but then the religious leaders turned him over to be condemned and crucified!

(a summary that clearly lays primary blame on the Jewish leadership… and rightly so)

* So, these two share their personal disappointment bc they had hoped he was the one who was to come and redeem Israel (delivering Israel from her enemies [Rome] and restoring them to favor with God as his chosen people).

* They continue: there’s more even today (Sunday) that adds further complication and consternation: It’s the third day (21b), which means to me they understand the implication of the report from the women.

They go on to explain what the women reported (vv.

22-23)… They shocked us out of our minds! is basically what they express.

* The empty tomb was confirmed by other men in their group (24).

Although they had not believed the women, others besides just Peter and John evidently visited the tomb that day (unless this reference is only to that visit), just barely outside of the city to the north.

[This might indicate that numerous trips were made to the tomb that day, perhaps with some even returning more than once, which could provide yet another way to reconcile the complimentary gospel accounts of Sunday’s events.]

But the men who had gone to the tomb did not see Jesus at that time.

(so the explanation ends with a note of doubt)

They are amazed and perplexed, but not convinced.

+ Jesus’ answer to all of this description, and to them he is still an unknown stranger, is a rebuke (v.

25).

Rebukes aren’t fun, but they are necessary sometimes.

He begins with O!, which is emphatic.

Jesus has some emotion in his response, as well as disappointment of his own.

Jesus expresses that their failure to comprehend is foolish and slow-hearted.

The word translated foolish here means to be without understanding, not marked by the use of reason.

The reality of the resurrection really should have been plain, but since it is not, Jesus will remove the veil of their lack of understanding.

They are also slow to accept the truth in their “hearts,” the seat of internal response—a truth attested to by “all the prophets.”

+ A summary of what this stranger will show them from Scripture (v.

27) is stated in v. 26, which he gives in the form of a rhetorical question anticipating an emphatic positive reply: “Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?”

Notice two key features here as he makes this statement and proves it from the Old Testament:

Scripture itself provides the needed correction, a right understanding of the person and work of Jesus.

“Moses and the prophets… all the Scriptures” = the entire Hebrew Bible (what we call the OT).

It contains explicit messianic prophecies, as well as promises and patterns fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ.

(Explicit: Isaiah 53 suffering servant, Deut 18:15-18 prophet like Moses but greater than Moses - Heb 3:3 For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses—as much more glory as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself.)