The Vanishing Hitchhiker

Luke 24:36b-48
GJ

The third Sunday of Easter is often referred to as the “Road to Emmaus” Sunday after the passages from Luke that we read this morning. That title alone is enough to raise the question, “Just where the heck is Emmaus?” – a question much more easily asked than answered, BUT inquiring minds want to know. Right? Right? Of course right.

Emmaus is often the name given to little town of Nicopolis – a little less that 20 miles from Jerusalem. But other Biblical scholars suggest that there may not be an actual town but rather only a symbolic identification. Keep in mind that there are several different versions of the Luke text and on this matter they do not agree. One suggestion is that Emmaus really refers to the symbolic place where Jacob was visited by God in his dream... you remember... the story of Jacob’s Ladder. It does
make for an interesting parallel between Jacob being visited by God and the disciples being visited by Jesus. Roman Scholar, Richard Carrier makes this case in his book, the “Vanishing Hitchhiker” a Latin story that parallels the Biblical story. In the final analysis, it probably doesn’t make any difference where Emmaus existed, only that something important happened there.

The Gospel of Luke we read really comes in three parts: 1) proofs of the resurrection; 2) interpretation of the scripture; and 3) the departure of Jesus. This morning we are only going thru
the first two parts.

On the road to Emmaus the two travelers did not recognize Jesus as he walked with them even through he spoke with them in some length. It is only later in the evening when they break bread together that they suddenly become aware of just who this stranger in the midst really is. The report that Jesus "stood" among them echoes the language of encounters with angels in the OT. Jesus speaks to them with a traditional greeting "Peace be with you." Their reaction becomes an important part of the story.

The disciples react not so much as one would expect if they really recognized Jesus but more like what happens when they encounter an angel - or a ghost. They are startled and terrified. In this reaction to the risen Lord as ghost they betray the fact that either they misunderstood the nature of the resurrection or they thought that some spirit (not Jesus) was fooling around with them. Either way there is an immediate need to clarify the nature of the resurrection and to confirm its reality.

As is often the case the doubt motif pops up. In the Gospel of John, Thomas is assigned to role of being the doubter. In Luke it appears to be all of the disciples. Jesus offers up two proofs: first his hands and feet and then he eats in front of them. Both actions verify that he is not a ghost but has indeed risen from the grave. These proofs however insist on the reality of the physical body in ways that other versions of the Gospels do not. They also raise even more interesting questions to those who have inquiring minds and who want to know.

It is easy to assume that what Jesus is offering when he invites them to examine his hands and feet that they should see the marks of the nails. But that may not be the case. While earlier on John writes of the spear in the side and the use of nails in hands and feet, Luke does not. It is not clear in Luke exactly what about his hands and feet he is asking them to examine. He invites them to touch him, but you may have noticed that in this version, no one takes him up on that offer.

Let me digress ever so slightly and suggest just how difficult of a task this might have been. Would you be able to recognize the hands of the people in this congregation if you were not able to see anything else about them? My guess is that most of us would be hard pressed to really identify a person by their hands.

This after all is one of the favorite tricks that Sherlock Holmes likes to play. He will be engaged in a brief conversation with someone he has not previously meet and after a few minutes when that person leaves, he turns to Watson and begins to describe the other person in great detail down to where he is
from, his age, and what he does for a living. Perhaps it was easily in Victorian England to do that and perhaps it was just a good bit by A. Conan Doyle to demonstrate how little attention most of us really pay to those around us.

Have you ever really look at your hands? I invite you to do so now. Examine them carefully. What do they say about you? Do you like they way they look or are you secretly ashamed of them? I like to look at Laura's hands. She has long, delicate fingers like those who could make their living playing the piano or the cello (both of which she did).

If you would have trouble identifying someone else's hands, imagine the difficulties you might have if all you could see was their feet. Perhaps in Jesus time this was less of a problem when everyone wore sandals and toes were exposed.

Feet can be interesting things as well. People's feet probably do tell even more about who they are and where they have been than do the hands. I have big feet, but short, stubby toes. I also have an extra toenail on each of my little toes. Laura on the other hand (or foot if you will) has classic royal feet. There is a legend that one's roots can be traced back to European royalty if you index toe is longer than your big toe. Since one of Laura's relatives supposedly was in the royal court of Sweden, it should not be surprising if I were to tell you that indeed, her index toe is longer than her big toe. It's not all good news however. Apparently, with the longer index toes comes increased foot problems for long distance runners.

On a more mundane level have you ever had a friend who could not aim a camera and so when all the film was returned you could sit around and try to guess just who it was that the pictures were taken of? One of the things I had to learn the hard way was to make certain when my parents died that the funeral home put shoes on their bodies in the caskets. We had enough curious little nephews around that at least one of them would notice the absence of shoes. Curious minds may be genetic, but even little curious minds want to know.

I had to get out my old Grey's Anatomy for this bit of trivia, but did you know that there are 26 different bones in each foot and 27 in each hand. That's a total of 53 different bones in a hand and a foot. That's about 1/4 of the total bones in the entire body counting teeth. Almost 1/2 if you count both sides of the body.

So all in all, when Jesus stood before them and told them to examine his hands and feet there may well have been more to the story than initially met the eye. Other evidence that suggests that might be the case is the fact that the first proof may not have been enough because "they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement." As a result, a second proof is offered. Jesus eats a small piece of fish in front of them.

While this act seems simple enough there are aspects to it that definitely need discussion. In the OT when angels were among humans sometimes they ate and sometimes not. Abraham ate with an angel of the Lord but in the book of Judges when food is presented to the angel it is immediately consumed by fire. In a small book that is not part of the regular Bible, Tobit, the angel is never seen to eat or drink with humans. This is offered as proof that what they had seen was indeed a vision. Therefore, it follows that the risen Lord's act of eating boiled fish is offered as proof that he is real and not a spirit.

I have spent some time thinking about why fish. If he were an angel, what exactly would an angel eat? Inquiring minds want to know. Would it be angel food cake or perhaps deviled eggs. I don't know. But fish? Why fish? Of course, the obvious answer is that since many were fishermen he ate what was most likely available - namely fish. But I suspect that there may be more to the story than that. Earlier in this chapter of Luke he had become known in the breaking of the bread - a phrase that we use in the Celebration of the Great Thanksgiving. Here though, he eats fish and I suspect that it is put into the story to remind the listener of the loaves and fishes in the feeding of the five thousand.

As simple as these proofs may be, the preaching of the resurrection reaches back to the word and experience of the eyewitnesses. Once upon a time there were those who could say, "We saw him." The preaching of the gospel does not rest on fiction or fantasy but on the experience of the apostles. Ultimately, it is their story and the story of the women who went to the tomb.

Whether or not these would have been sufficient proofs for any modern person is not the point. The point is that something changed the disciples and that something also sustained them through trials and tribulations that were to follow. When they preached, they did not focus they speeches on the saying of Jesus but rather on his death and resurrection. The experience of the presence of the risen Lord led the disciples to see that he had been raised and that experience was and still is the very
foundation of our faith.

We are still called to be witnesses. When we affirm that the Lord is risen indeed, we need to consider what it is that the Lord is now asking us to do. This is the essence of the Easter message. It changes the lives of those who find themselves touched by it.

In the end, the disciples receive the blessing of the risen Lord. They responded with joy and worship. Joy is indeed the natural product of blessing. May it always be God's gift to those who study the God's Word and seek God's kingdom.
AMEN.