Translated by Qwen.

Father Joseph Knabenbauer's Commentary on Luke 24:13–35

Duo discipuli in Emmaus (The Two Disciples on the Road to Emmaus)

In this singular event, the extraordinary love of Christ for his disciples is demonstrated: he, finding them sorrowful and greatly wavering in faith, instructs them by explaining the prophecies, and thus prepares and teaches them concerning the Messiah, filling them with supreme consolation through the manifestation of himself. We see, therefore, how greatly it lies upon his heart to raise up, teach, and console his own, and to elevate them to true knowledge of himself.

Lk 24:13: "And behold, two of them…" — Cf. verse 9, where mention is made of "the eleven and all the rest," to whom, namely, the women returning from the tomb were narrating [what they had seen]. These two, therefore, were among those disciples who had been gathered with the eleven on the morning of the first day of the week. Nor does it stand in the way that in verse 10 mention is made of the apostles alone; for from this some wish that the pronoun autōn ("of them") can refer only to the apostles. But since these two are nevertheless distinguished from the apostles, this is taken by some as evidence that this narrative was originally written in a different context (cf. Weiss). However, from verse 9 it is plain that what was said was not addressed to the apostles alone; consequently, also in verse 13, autōn does not refer to the apostles exclusively.

"They were going that same day to a village" (εἰς κώμην) "which was sixty stadia from Jerusalem, named Emmaus." When they departed may be inferred from what is said in verses 23–24. They know only that certain women found the tomb empty and had a vision of angels; likewise, that Peter and John had gone to the monument. Of other matters they had heard nothing. Therefore, they departed as soon as Peter and John had returned from the tomb, before Mary Magdalene, having returned a second time to the monument (John 20:10) and having been blessed by an appearance of the Lord, came to the disciples announcing: "I have seen the Lord, and he said these things to me" (John 20:17ff.). Mary Magdalene, however, first went to the tomb very early in the morning; as soon as she saw the tomb empty, she ran to Peter and John, announcing: "They have taken away the Lord, and we do not know where they have laid him." Having heard this, those two also hastened to the monument, and Mary Magdalene again betook herself to the tomb. Therefore, from the evangelistic narrative it seems certain that they set out from Jerusalem in the morning (i.e., quite early), so that they might return home after the feast had concluded. This point has recently been well demonstrated by an accurate explanation of the evangelistic narrative by Schiffers, who considers it highly probable that they had already departed from the upper room, where the others were gathered, before the eighth hour of the morning (i.e., the second hour after sunrise) (see Katholik 1893, pp. 345ff., 406).

---

On the Location of Emmaus

But where Emmaus (Ἐμμαοῦς or Ἀμμαοῦς) ought to be sought, three opinions have been proposed. Indeed, a fair number of recent scholars assign it either to Kubeibeh (el-Kubeibeh; so Zschokke, Schegg, Holzammer, Fillion, etc.) or to Kulonieh (Colonia; so Calmet, Sepp, Reischl, Caspari, Weiss, Schürer; cf. Ritter, XVI Iudaea, etc., p. 545; Bourquenoud, Études religieuses, historiques et littéraires, 1863, pp. 596ff.; Kirchenlexikon, ed. Kaulen, s.v.; Riess, Bibelatlas, s.v.; Realencyclopädie für protestantische Theologie, XI, p. 771). However, by the most ancient tradition, Emmaus is designated as the city which, at the request of Julius Africanus, was restored from ruins and in the year 223 was granted the name Nicopolis; today the place called Amwās is found there. Witnesses to this tradition are Eusebius, Jerome, Sozomen, Theodosius the Archdeacon, Cassiodorus, etc. (see Schiffers, Amwās, p. 14ff.). This opinion, inasmuch as it has been frequently transmitted by Jerome, has been adopted not only by many interpreters (cf. Bede, Bonaventure, Jansen, Baronius, Luke of Bruges, Salmerón, Maldonatus, Sá, Suárez, Lapide, Mariana, Tirinus, Gordon, etc.), but also by some recent scholars, such as Robinson, Guérin (Judée, pp. 293ff.), and especially Schiffers, who has written an extensive and learned disputation on this question (Amwās, Freiburg i.B., 1890) and further defended his opinion in Katholik (loc. cit.) and in Revue biblique II, p. 223. Traces of this ancient tradition also appear in the variant reading of "160 stadia."

Indeed, Eusebius and St. Jerome write thus: "Emmaus, from which place Cleophas came—of whom Luke the Evangelist makes mention—this is now Nicopolis, a distinguished city of Palestine" (Onomasticon). The testimony of Eusebius is certainly weighty: he himself was born in Palestine, metropolitan of the ecclesiastical province of Palaestina Prima, to which Nicopolis, as an episcopal see, belonged. As often as Jerome mentions Emmaus, he adds that it is now called Nicopolis, which was previously called Emmaus, where the mountainous region of the province of Judea begins; he assigns [Emmaus] to the tribe of Dan, [and mentions] Lydda and Emmaus, now called Diospolis and Nicopolis; he recounts that Julius Africanus undertook a legation for the restoration of the city of Emmaus, which was afterward called Nicopolis, etc. (cf. Schiffers, Amwās, p. 11). Likewise, it is evident that the holy doctor, when naming Emmaus mentioned in the Books of Maccabees, refers to Nicopolis, and never distinguishes either two towns named Emmaus or two cities named Nicopolis. Likewise, it is established that by that ancient tradition, at Nicopolis the house of Cleophas was consecrated as a church and frequented by the pious for devotion, just as at Nazareth, Bethlehem, etc. Now, all concede that Nicopolis was situated in the place where today Amwās is found.

Nor does it stand in the way that Emmaus, that city mentioned in the Book of Maccabees (1 Macc. 3:10, 57; 4:3), was a fairly distinguished city, whereas Luke calls it merely a "village" (κώμη). For in the time of Christ, it had indeed fallen from its former dignity; its inhabitants had been sold into slavery by Cassius Longinus; the city itself had afterward been destroyed by fire by Quintilius Varus (cf. Schiffers, loc. cit., pp. 23, 40). Therefore, from that ancient tradition, maintained through many centuries, the reading of "160 stadia" is likewise commended. For Emmaus (Nicopolis) is described as ἐν τῇ πεδινῇ, i.e., in a level region, in the Shephelah, and is distant from the city by 152 stadia (Guérin) or 176 stadia, as others say. For from the city, three roads paved by the Romans led to Nicopolis; one of these (via Kubeibeh, Betnuba) has 160 stadia; another (via El-Djib, Betur) is longer; a third, shorter route was discovered by Guillemot (Schiffers, loc. cit., p. 61).

That Kulonieh cannot be intended is already inferred from the fact that this colony of eight hundred veterans, which indeed previously bore the name Ammaus, is distant from the city by only thirty stadia. For thirty stadia have been confirmed both by accurate exploration and are likewise read in the critical editions of Flavius Josephus (Bell. Jud. 7.6.6; cf. Schiffers, loc. cit., pp. 49ff.). Nor can Kubeibeh be intended, as is already evident from the fact that it can in no way be shown that this place ever bore the name Emmaus; and attempts to show that Kubeibeh once also bore the name Nicopolis—so that two distinguished cities named Nicopolis must be distinguished—seem to lack force and efficacy, since the ancients are entirely silent concerning two such cities. Moreover, from what has been handed down to memory by the ancients, it is gathered that Nicopolis (which they call Emmaus) was situated in the region of the tribe of Dan, in the plains (Shephelah), where the mountainous region of the province of Judea begins to rise, four miles from Gazer, two miles from Aijalon of the tribe of Dan, ten miles from Beth-horon, ten miles from Lydda (so in Eusebius, Jerome; some details in Josephus). Now, Amwās is situated four miles from Tell Gezer, two miles from Yalo, ten from Betur, ten from Lydda, in the region of the tribe of Dan, in the Shephelah. But Kubeibeh is situated quite differently: for it is sixteen miles from Gazer, ten from Yalo, twenty from Lydda, five from Beth-horon, in the midst of the mountains of Judea (cf. Schiffers, loc. cit., pp. 81–82, 100–101).

---

The Conversation on the Way and Christ's Appearance

Lk 24:14–15: While those two disciples were making their journey, "they were speaking to one another about all these things that had happened." And "it came to pass, while they were conversing and questioning with themselves…" (συζητεῖν). What they were debating may be gathered from verses 19ff.: for in no way could they reconcile matters that seemed most contrary to one another: the life, teaching, and miracles of Jesus, and his most ignominious death, by which death they were cast down from the hope they had conceived concerning him as the Messiah. But while they were speaking of Jesus and were sorrowful, Jesus—who most willingly desires to impart a share of his blessedness to his own, and who had promised that where two are gathered in his name, he would be in their midst—"Jesus himself drew near and went with them," joining himself to them as a traveler who was proceeding along the same road.

Lk 24:16: "But their eyes were held, that they should not know him." Similarly, Mary Magdalene, seeing Jesus, did not know that it was Jesus; and when Jesus stood on the shore of the lake of Tiberias, the disciples did not recognize that it was Jesus (John 20:14; 21:5); cf. Mark 16:12: "He was shown to two walking in another shape" (ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ). "Just as it was in his power that his body be seen or not seen, so it was in his power that from his appearance there be formed in the eyes of the beholders either a glorious form, or a non-glorious one, or even a mixed form, or one having itself in whatever manner; for a slight difference suffices that someone be seen to appear in a foreign shape" (St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae III, q. 55, a. 1, ad 3; similarly Jansen, Salmerón, Suárez, a Corde, Lapide, Luke of Bruges; that Christ truly appeared with a changed form of body, St. Jerome on Matthew and others teach).

Why, however, he did not immediately manifest himself to them, Theophylact offers these reasons: "that they might reveal their wavering opinion, that they might uncover the wound and receive the remedy, that he might be sweeter to them after a long delay, that he might teach from Moses and the prophets, and that then he might be recognized and they might believe more firmly that his body is no longer such that it can simply be seen by all." Others recite the words of St. Gregory (Homily 23 on the Gospels): "Therefore, the Lord accomplished externally before the eyes of the body what was being accomplished internally before the eyes of their heart; for within themselves they both loved and doubted; and to them externally the Lord was both present and did not show who he was. To those speaking of him, he exhibited his presence; but to those doubting concerning him, he concealed the form by which he might be known" (cf. Bede, Bonaventure, Jansen, Lapide, Sylvester).

---

The Dialogue with the "Stranger"

Lk 24:17: Jesus, however, as a traveler who had overtaken them from behind and had overheard something of their conversation, says to them: "What are these discourses that you confer together as you walk, and are sad?" See textual variants: "and they stood still, sad." By this sudden address, as if astonished, they halt their step and display a countenance saddened by the conversation they had been holding concerning the things that had happened.

Lk 24:18: "And one, whose name was Cleophas" (Κλεόπας)—a name, as it seems, contracted from Κλεόπατρος, just as Ἀντίπας from Ἀντίπατρος, Lucas (Lucanus), etc. (cf. Schanz, Weiss, Grimm, s.v.)—responded to him. Therefore, one ought not to think of Clopas, who, as Holtzmann wishes, undertook this journey with his son, James the Less; against this opinion, see Cornely, Commentary on 1 Corinthians, p. 456. Concerning who the other disciple was, others have conjectured variously: St. Cyril calls him Simon; St. Ambrose, Ammaon; Epiphanius, Nathanael. Nor have there been lacking those who thought that Luke, in similar fashion, remained silent concerning himself, just as John in his Gospel speaks of himself as of another disciple (cf. St. Bonaventure, Albert, Theophylact).

"Art thou alone a stranger in Jerusalem?" (παροικεῖς: "dost thou sojourn as a stranger"). "And hast not known the things that have been done there in these days?"

Lk 24:19: "To whom he said: 'What things?'" And they said: "Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was" (ἐγένετο: "became," "showed himself to be") "a prophet, powerful in work and word before God and all the people."

Lk 24:20: "And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death and crucified him." Peter speaks in the same manner in Acts 2:23; 3:15; 4:10: for it was by their deeds and outcry that Pilate was moved to hand him over to the punishment of the cross (Weiss, Keil). Schanz says unjustly that in Luke the Jews are described as though they themselves carried out the crucifixion (cf. Luke 23:36–37).

Lk 24:21: "But we hoped that it was he who would have redeemed Israel." This hope had been stirred up in them by the works and words of Jesus. But if he is the Messiah, how can it be that he is rejected by the leaders of Israel, that he is cut off by a monstrous punishment? Behold, this is the difficulty which Matthew strives to remove in his Gospel. For since the Messiah was to be sent to Israel, and Israel likewise has long awaited, desired, and earnestly longed for its long-promised Messiah, how can he be considered the Messiah whom Israel not only rejects but wishes to see destroyed by a most terrible punishment?

In saying "we hoped," they uncover their wound. "And now, besides all these things" (σὺν πᾶσιν τούτοις: "with all these things, moreover"), "today is the third day since these things happened" (ἀφ' οὗ: "from which time"; τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν ἄγει: "he is spending/leading this third day"). Some explain [the phrase as referring to] Ἰησοῦς ἄγει… (cf. Weiss); but since they consider Jesus dead, it scarcely seems fitting to say of a dead man: "he is spending the third day." See, however, John 11:17 ("he found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb four days," and v. 39). Others: [supply] χρόνος ἄγει (Luke, Schanz); others take the expression impersonally (Fillion, Keil); others [supply] ὡρα ἄγει. But that they say the third day is now being spent certainly reveals that they know Jesus had foretold concerning the third day; they seem to have expected that on that day the kingdom of Israel would be restored (Acts 1:6). However, how little the thought of resurrection from the dead had entered their minds is demonstrated in verse 22.

Lk 24:22–24: "But also certain women of our company frightened us" (ἐξέστησαν: "astounded us," "threw us into admiration," as Aristotle in the Rhetoric translates the term, per Rosenmüller, as Cicero does); "who before light" (ὄρθριαι: properly "of the morning," i.e., at dawn) "were at the monument, and not having found his body, came, saying that they had also seen a vision of angels, who say that he is alive"; cf. verse 9. "And some of those who were with us went to the monument," namely, Peter (v. 12) and John (John 20:2). From this narrative it is simultaneously gathered how Matthew 28:9 ought not to be understood: for the women did not meet Jesus when they first returned from the tomb, but afterward on another occasion. "And so they found it just as the women had said; but him they did not find" (αὐτὸν δὲ οὐχ εὗρον: "they did not see him"). They imply that if he truly were alive, Jesus ought also to have been seen by them. Behold, how far they are from expecting the resurrection! But this very fact becomes for us an argument that the resurrection did occur, because afterward all the disciples affirmed with such constancy of mind that Jesus had risen from the dead.

---

Christ's Reproof and Instruction

Lk 24:25: When they had now declared their entire state of mind, "he himself said to them: 'O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!'" He rebukes them because they do not understand what the prophets foretold concerning the Messiah, and because they are sluggish in mind, as if dull, slow, who do not allow themselves to be led to believe all things that have been announced by the prophets. Indeed, that preconceived notion of a glorious messianic kingdom was an impediment preventing them from attending to the oracles concerning a suffering Messiah. Moreover, it is also well known that it is difficult to persuade a person of that from which his mind shrinks.

Lk 24:26: "Ought not Christ to have suffered these things" (i.e., those mentioned in vv. 18, 21)—"namely, according to the oracles of the prophets—and so to enter into his glory?" See Luke 23:43. The glory of Christ, which was already declared in his death by the darkness, the earthquake, and the torn veil, immediately appeared also in his blessed soul, in his descent to the lower regions, where he bestowed blessedness and the vision of God upon the fathers in limbo; and it appeared still more in the resurrection, when he assumed a glorious, spiritual body (cf. 1 Cor. 15:42ff.). Some (cf. Weiss) incorrectly understand the words as if it were asserted here that the ascension into heaven immediately followed the passion. For the glorious state was already attained by the resurrection, as clearly appears from the manner in which he manifests himself in a body no longer earthly and mortal, but changed into a certain spiritual and heavenly condition. And just as in his mortal body he taught his own with all patience, so the same Lord does not disdain to do so even in his glory.

Lk 24:27: "And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." Cf. verse 44. From this instruction of Christ, it is to be believed that those prophecies which are explained in the Gospels and Epistles have been preserved for us. For the apostles taught what they had learned from the Lord, and "the Holy Spirit will suggest to you all things whatsoever I have said to you" (John 14:26).

Lk 24:28: Thus they are instructed by the Lord, so that the scandal of the cross is removed, since it is clear from the oracles of the prophets that the Messiah suffered by the definite plan and will of God. "And they drew near to the village where they were going, and he made as if he would go farther"—that is, he arranged his gestures and movements as though about to proceed farther; which he indeed would have done, i.e., departed, had they not invited him (cf. Cajetan, Jansen, Luke of Bruges). For they were to be tested whether they loved him at least as a traveler (Bede), and while he resolved to proceed farther, he gives them an occasion to invite him more affectionately and to merit more (St. Bonaventure).

Lk 24:29: "And they constrained him, saying," they urgently begged and entreated him; for from his words they felt their minds refreshed, enlightened, and pervaded by an unaccustomed sweetness (v. 32); whence they ardently desired to enjoy his company longer. "Stay with us, for it is toward evening, and the day is now far spent." What the Jews mean by "the day inclining" is learned from Judges 19:8ff.; namely, the father-in-law says to the Levite: "Consider that the day is declining toward evening and draws near to dusk"; yet he nevertheless sets out, taking with him two loaded donkeys from Bethlehem toward Jerusalem, and when he was near Jerusalem, the day had greatly declined. He, however, continued the journey he had begun, and when he reached Gibeah, the sun set. Now, from Bethlehem to Jerusalem are counted six miles, i.e., a journey of two hours; from Jerusalem to Gibeah (Josephus counts twenty stadia) is a journey of one hour. Therefore, de Hummelauer rightly notes on Judges 19:8 ("the day inclines"): "The day begins to turn at midday when the sun begins to incline from rising to setting; certainly the evening time is not meant, for since the journey from Bethlehem to Shiloh is about seven hours, the departure could not be delayed until evening if the journey were to be completed that day"; cf. also Schiffers, who says this journey is more than seven hours (Katholik 1893 I, p. 400).

Therefore, from these words it is by no means permissible to conclude that they arrived at Emmaus at about evening time (according to our way of speaking). Hence Jansen rightly warns: "It is probable that several hours were still lacking until evening and sunset, and yet because they were very desirous of keeping Jesus, they allege the approaching evening itself as the reason for staying"; therefore, their use of a certain exaggeration, to make their invitation more effective, is entirely in keeping with the manner of men ardently desiring something. Wherefore Luke [of Bruges] notes: "For evening was not as near as their words suggest; but they exaggerate the matter, that they may retain a welcome guest," etc.

On Christ "Feigning" to Go Farther (v. 28): 

The Priscillianists appealed to this passage to contend that lying is sometimes lawful, against whom St. Augustine argues (Contra Mendacium 13, n. 28; Migne 40, 538). And Maldonatus also says: "So great was the force of this argument with some, that they truly thought Christ lied, and that it is lawful for us sometimes to lie by his example; in which error was also Cassian, a Catholic and good author; but no body is so beautiful as to be without a blemish. That Christ did not lie must be certain; how his feigning was not a lie is easier to believe than to explain. For in the two reasons which the blessed Augustine offers, I confess my mind does not rest satisfied; both revolve around this one point, that it is not a lie when we feign something not to deceive, but to signify something greater; that Christ therefore did not lie, because by that feigning of his he wished not to deceive the disciples, but to teach and signify something greater" (Quaest. Evang. 2, 51; Migne 35, 1362). But whether what Maldonatus himself finally offers to solve the question will be approved by many, I do not know: "Christ did not wish to deceive the disciples, but to teach them that they were deceived and to free them from error."

Yet the matter does not seem to be pressed by a serious difficulty. For Christ so arranged his step and bearing that he seemed about to proceed farther; and he would indeed have proceeded farther, i.e., departed, had they not compelled him to stay by their prayers. Some seem to be looking for a knot in a bulrush [making a difficulty out of nothing]. Moreover, see the Sinaitic reading: "and it seemed to them as if he were going to a remote place."

Timing and Distance (vv. 28–29): 

From what has been said on v. 29, it is also clear that from these words no real objection can be drawn against the opinion that modern Amwās is considered Emmaus. That road of 160 stadia, which they entered in the morning, could easily be covered in six or seven hours. Hence, since they may be considered to have set out in the morning at about the eighth hour [i.e., 8 a.m.], they could have spoken thus at 2 or 3 in the afternoon (according to our way of reckoning). But returning to the city, they abounded in joy and exultation over the risen Christ; whence they accelerated their journey as much as possible, as is customary for those who eagerly wish to bring a most joyful message to others in sorrow as quickly as possible. Therefore, they could have been back by the eighth or ninth hour in the evening. And because on that day the apostles had heard so many things that instilled the greatest expectation and wonder in their minds, it is no wonder that at that time they were gathered together, watchful, in the same house until late at night. For who in such a condition, due to mental excitement, could have slept?

To this end, what Hesychius, priest of Jerusalem, writes must also be considered: "We ought not to wonder that on the same day they departed from Jerusalem to Emmaus and from Emmaus to Jerusalem; for it is not written that it was evening when they drew near to the village, but that it was becoming evening and the day was already declining, so that it was perhaps the eighth or ninth hour (namely, after sunrise; therefore 2 or 3 in the afternoon), because from the seventh hour the sun inclines as it were toward the evening part; besides which they used haste out of joy to report the miracle, and they arrived very late. For we call 'late' that time which extends far into the night" (Migne 93, 1443).

Lk 24:30–31: Jesus, who had arranged himself to continue the journey so that he might be asked to stay, entered with them; v. 30: "And it came to pass, while he reclined with them, he took bread and blessed, and broke, and gave it to them." Jesus now no longer acts as a guest, but as a master or head of the household; whence he himself distributes the food, having first uttered a blessing. "He blessed" (εὐλόγησεν); even the rabbis prescribe a certain prayer formula before eating ("Let us bless, bless"; cf. Lightfoot on this place); in the same way the Apostle says: "If I partake with thanksgiving, why am I blasphemed for that for which I give thanks?" (1 Cor. 10:30, and see Rom. 14:6). In this manner, Jesus is often to be considered during his public life to have reclined at table among his disciples, blessed, broken bread, and given it; whence also by this familiar manner of acting he now wished to manifest and be recognized by them, that he might fill the joy of his own and, as it were, bestow upon them a share of his blessedness.

Lk 24:31: "And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him, and he vanished out of their sight." v. 35 they report that he was known "in the breaking of bread" (ἐν τῇ κλάσει), as it were, by the sign by which they were led to his recognition (cf. John 13:35; Schanz, Weiss). Here is shown to us a property (dos) of the glorious, spiritual body; it can be visible; but it can also immediately vanish from mortal eyes, and it can suddenly bring itself through closed doors wherever it wishes (v. 36).

I think we ought to agree with those who say that Christ did not give them the holy Eucharist, but blessed the bread, as was the custom before eating; so Albert, Euthymius, Cajetan, Dionysius, Estius, Jansen (who considers this more probable), Calmet, Schegg, Schanz, Fillion. For from the word "blessed" no argument can be drawn for consecration, as St. Bonaventure and Estius rightly warn, since it was customary to precede eating with a blessing (Euthymius). Then, since these disciples had not been present at the Paschal supper, they cannot be considered to have been instructed concerning the holy Eucharist, as Estius points out; moreover, the body of Christ is not to be given to anyone except to one who knows and believes in that mystery, as he also says. Finally, it is also uncertain whether they ate the bread that was offered; for once Jesus was immediately recognized and withdrawn from their eyes, they were certainly seized by such admiration and astonishment of mind, such exultation and consolation, that it may be believed they completely forgot about food (cf. Calmet).

The Eucharist Debate: 

Quite a number, indeed, want Christ to have given them his body (cf. Theophylact, Salmerón, Luke of Bruges, Maldonatus, Lapide, a Corde, Sylvester, Reischl, Bisping, Grimm), and appeal partly to the Paschal supper itself, at which he took bread, blessed, broke, and gave it to the disciples, and partly to Acts 2:42, etc., where "the breaking of bread" is said of the celebration of the holy Eucharist. But neither argument seems effective. For in the former, the principal thing is lacking: "and he said: 'Take and eat: this is my body.'" In the latter, it must be noted that it is one thing to break bread in a sacred assembly gathered for prayer, and another when it is narrated that travelers, having arrived home after a journey of several hours, broke bread.

St. Augustine is said to hold this opinion; whether they assert it correctly is doubtful. Behold his words: "Come, brethren, where did the Lord wish to be recognized? In the breaking of bread. We are secure, we break bread and recognize the Lord. He did not wish to be recognized except there; for our sake, who were not to see him in the flesh, and yet were to eat his flesh. Whoever, therefore, you are who are faithful, whoever you are who are not vainly called a Christian, whoever you are who enter the church not without cause, whoever you are who hear the word of God with fear and hope, let the breaking of bread console you" (Sermon 935, 3; Migne 38, 1118). For by these words the holy doctor does not say that the Eucharist was given to them, but on the occasion of the words he makes a certain application, in which application he understands and explains the Eucharist by "the breaking of bread." But from the fact that in the application the words are taken in that sense, it does not yet follow that they must also be understood in the same way in the sacred text itself according to the mind of the holy doctor. The same holds for his other passage (De Consensu Evangelistarum 3, 235, 72), where he draws this application: "lest anyone think he has recognized Christ, if he is not a partaker of his body," i.e., the Church, whose unity the Apostle commends in the sacrament of bread. And Bede also brings forward this application on v. 35, while elsewhere he hints nothing about the Eucharist on Lk 24:30–31; therefore, he is unjustly cited for the opinion on the Eucharist.

What favors that opinion more is what the holy doctor adds in the same place; for he thinks the impediment in the disciples' eyes was caused by Satan, "but the permission made by Christ [lasted] until the sacrament of bread, so that when they partook of the unity of his body, the impediment of the enemy might be understood to be removed, that Christ might be recognized"; yet I do not think the matter is thereby settled; for "sacrament" is of a sufficiently broad signification, and what is added seems to be the same application as just mentioned, namely, that whoever is joined to the Church should be a partaker of the unity of his body. St. Jerome indeed says that Christ consecrated the house of Cleophas as a church. But he in no way implies that this consecration was made through the Eucharist. Could not the house be considered sufficiently consecrated by the very presence of the Lord in his glorious body? cf. Epistle 108, 8; Migne 22, 883.

Others also refer us to St. Chrysostom for this opinion on the Eucharist (Salmerón, Sylvester, Reischl); but what is cited are not the holy doctor's words, but are drawn from the Opus Imperfectum in Matthew (whose author is accused of the Arian heresy), Homily 17; yet not even that author clearly asserts it; for after he said: "what the priest gives from his hand is not only sanctified, but is also a sanctification" (i.e., it sanctifies the other), he adds two examples: "whence also the Lord on the way not only blessed the bread, but gave it from his hand to Cleophas and his companion; and Paul, while sailing, not only blessed the bread, but offered it from his hand to Luke and his other disciples." This second example certainly does not pertain to the Eucharist; so then, does the first? Therefore, it seems bolder to say with Sylvester and Reischl that the Fathers commonly explain the words concerning the Eucharist, or that this is to be gathered from ecclesiastical tradition.

Lk 24:32–35: Christ left the disciples full of joy and consolation; v. 32: "And they said to one another: 'Was not our heart burning within us, while he spoke to us on the way and opened to us the Scriptures?'" [Greek: καίετο ἡ καρδία ἡμῶν]; they now wonder, the Lord having been recognized, that they did not already recognize him on the way from the conversation in which he expounded the oracles concerning the Messiah and showed them fulfilled in Jesus, and from the intimate affection of soul and ardor which they had even then drawn from his words. In this agitation of minds is seen the power of Jesus' words; they experienced, as always before, that the word of the Lord is in power and grace! The joy they feel they hasten immediately to share with others, bringing them the most joyful message.

Lk 24:33: "And rising up the same hour," without delay; for those whom they had left mourning and weeping in the city (cf. Mark 16:10), they delight in announcing the joy to them as quickly as possible, "they returned to Jerusalem and found the eleven gathered together;" they could have been back by the eighth or ninth hour in the evening (according to our reckoning), and since it was the time of the full moon, it was not troublesome to walk for two or three hours after sunset on account of darkness; "and those who were with them,"

Lk 24:34: "saying: 'The Lord is risen indeed,'" they add "indeed" (ὄντως) because they had previously not believed Mary Magdalene when she announced the same thing (Mark 16:11); for they are accustomed to speak thus when a thing that seemed incredible is proven true to men, "and has appeared to Simon;" that Jesus appeared to Peter, the first of the apostles, the Apostle also affirms (1 Cor. 15:5). Admirable and praiseworthy is that supreme clemency and kindness of Christ, by which he consoles this disciple (who had denied him three times!) before all others by his appearance, raises him in his sorrow, and bestows upon him a most noble proof of his love. He also shows him first in dignity among the apostles by honoring him first with his manifestation, and Peter now fulfills his office of confirming the brethren, and they defer to his authority; for to Peter announcing and affirming that the Lord had risen and was seen by him, they give credence, at least most of them, although, as in a matter so wondrous and unheard of, it could easily have happened that certain doubts soon arose again (cf. vv. 37, 41; Mark 16:13). Therefore, some (cf. Meyer, Weiss) vainly boast that a contradiction is found between Mark and Luke; these do not seem to have read v. 41, nor John 20:24ff., nor have they attended to how succinctly Mark narrates in that place (cf. Commentary on Mark, p. 439).

Lk 24:35: "And they themselves were telling what had happened on the way, and how they recognized him in the breaking of bread," ἐν τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου, "as it were by that sign"; others: "while he was breaking bread" (Schegg; beim Brodbrechen, while others prefer to translate and explain: am Brodbrechen); see on v. 30. There are some who, on this account, think that Christ had a certain singular and peculiar manner of blessing and breaking bread.

CONTINUE