My main musing has always been, why did the writer of each particular gospel use or frame the stories in the way they did?
When I read the parables, I have always looked for the main idea — the details of the story being the vehicle to convey that idea. I find it helpful to view resurrection appearances in the same way. Not to focus too much on the detail but to look for the message the author was giving.
Today’s lectionary gospel story is in Luke (24: 36b-48). Luke only includes two resurrection appearances although a third is alluded to with a passing mention to a previous appearance to Peter.
The first appearance recorded is the story of Cleopas and partner on the road to Emmaus. Although, the companion remains unnamed in Luke, Cleopas’ wife is named as Mary in John’s gospel and I assume this is who he was walking with.
In this first Lukan resurrection appearance, the two do not recognize the risen Christ in spite of what seems to have been a lengthy conversation where the scriptures were expounded to them. They later recognized the Christ in the breaking of bread. This is not today’s reading but nevertheless worth pondering about the message the author of the gospel of Luke was giving here — the recognition of Christ in the breaking of bread.
Anyway, I’ll dwell there another time, but now I need to move on, to the second resurrection appearance which is the text for today.
As the Lukan account continues Cleopas and Mary immediately returned to Jerusalem and went to the disciples to tell of their experience. The reading today begins with the disciples discussing their tale when Jesus came and stood amongst them bringing a blessing of peace.
It does read like there was some recognition that they were seeing the Christ but clearly uncertainty too — they thought “they were seeing a ghost” (37). Interestingly, many of the modern Bible translations use the word ghost rather than spirit in this text — that provides insight into the art of interpretation engaged in by translators.
Whether the English word used is ghost or spirit the sense is a noncorporeal being rather than a physical one. This was the initial perception of this resurrection appearance. Then, the author of Luke seeks to give proof that this was indeed a risen body. First, it can be touched, and the holes felt in it. Secondly, it can eat (In spite of the injuries!).
In the Lukan account the text then immediately moves to ascension. There is no further resurrection appearance. So, back to my original musing — what did the author of Luke want to convey with these two accounts?
The gospel of Luke was penned about 85CE. This would fall within the reign of Roman Emperor Domitian who was a particularly cruel ruler. He was the first emperor to style himself as “God the Lord”. He would also be referred to as “Holy”, “Thou Alone”, “Invincible” and “Lord of the Earth” to mention a few. He persecuted both Jews and Christians. Fox’s Book of Martyrs refers to this as the second persecution of Christians starting 81 CE. (the first was under Nero 67CE, the third under Trajan 108 CE).
I think this informs the intention of the text today. First by reminding the readers that Christ alone was sovereign. Then, by assuring them that life continues. Amidst persecution and certain death for many, the assurance of continuity would be essential and comforting. This story would be important. It reveals the continuation of life. Not necessarily life as before, “they were seeing a ghost”. By the time this was written, after the loss of so many during the first persecution it would be futile to imagine that those early Christians thought they would rise from the dead and carry on life as before.
This passage was not designed to give that message — but to give the message of continuity. Life goes on. Death was not an end but a doorway into something different.
It is the message of hope in this Easter season which has been shared by many over the centuries.
