On the Road to Emmaus

Luke ends his gospel with a masterpiece of a story that has captured our imaginations for millennia. And the story is so vivid and well-told that, if we’re not careful, its artistry can easily distract us from its chief message. I imagine you’ve heard speculation about whether the “other disciple” is Cleopas’s wife. And perhaps you’ve wished to be part of the greatest Bible study of all time on that 6-mile walk. Or maybe you’ve wondered how Jesus could simply vanish into thin air. And maybe you’ve been inspired by the eagerness of the two disciples to return to Jerusalem “that same hour,” after their long walk home on that long day.

These matters are all worth considering, and they are rightly in the corporate consciousness of those who read this story today. But allow me to model how a few key principles will help us to penetrate the outer edges of the story to better grasp its main point. (In what follows, I seek to apply the principles of narrative plot structure explained in this post.)

Plot Structure

With even an elementary grasp on how plot structure works, you know to look for the introduction of conflict. Everything before that conflict is simply setting the scene.

So we read, beginning at Luke 24:13, and we’re told of “two of them” going to Emmaus, about 7 miles from Jerusalem. They were talking about everything that had happened. While they were talking, Jesus himself draws near and goes with them. None of this is tense. There is no conflict yet, so all these details provide the setting for what is about to transpire.

Then Luke goes out of his way to tell us, “But their eyes were kept from recognizing him” (Luke 24:16). Now the story finally feels tense. Now there is a sense of uncertainty, of conflict between what is happening and what they perceive is happening.

In particular, we see a conflict between the disciples and their perceptions (your English teacher may have called this “man vs. himself”). The issue this story wants to address is: Can they recognize Jesus? And if so, how?

Now don’t get distracted. I can observe as well as you can that the passive voice is used: “their eyes were kept…” But don’t let that distract you into speculation on divine sovereignty vs. free will, nor into questions about why God would prevent them from recognizing Jesus. Much of the purpose of the passive voice is to avoid such matters entirely. Narrators typically use passive voice when they wish to direct your attention away from the person doing the action. They want you to gaze instead simply at what is happening to the object(s) of the action.

Skimming through the story for now, we should look for the climax. Where is the conflict (they can’t recognize Jesus) reversed? Luke does all the heavy lifting for us here, making it as clear as possible: “And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him” (Luke 24:31).

So everything between verses 16 and 31 serves as “rising action.” The events recounted here are heightening the tension and magnifying the conflict. And the material in verses 32-35 provide the resolution (32-34) and new setting (35). Remember, our opening setting involved two of them walking away from Jerusalem discussing the events surrounding Jesus’ resurrection. On account of the conflict, rising action, and climax, we have reached a new state of affairs where these two folks are no longer asking and wondering, but telling of what happened. And more particularly, they can proclaim “how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread” (Luke 24:35).

Approaching the Main Point

So our simple identification of conflict and climax strongly suggests that Luke’s main point in this episode has something to do with recognizing the risen Jesus. Of course, that’s not quite enough to go on just yet (it’s only a short phrase and not a truth proposition that ought to be believed or obeyed). But it sets us in the right direction.

We can look within the story’s action to discover that the testimony of the Hebrew Scripture plays a major role in such recognition. And there is something more going on than simply identifying Jesus by name in a lineup (bare “recognition” of Jesus’ name or face). Luke is communicating quite profoundly that they failed to recognize resurrection as being fundamental to the person and work of the Messiah. And this was not a problem of education but a problem of faith and of biblical interpretation (Luke 24:25-26).

That’s as far as I’ll go for now. I don’t want to simply tell you what I think the main point is. That would defeat the purpose of trying to help you figure it out for yourself.

But I trust my reflections here have done enough to show you that their eyes, while on the text, had been focused in all the wrong places. Perhaps we ought to avoid the same error when we study these Scriptures ourselves.