184: Suffering, Part 1

This is part one of a series looking at the role of suffering in the life of the Savior, and how our own suffering brings us closer to Him. The incident that I want to look at is recorded only one place in Scripture. And even though it only appears one place in the Scripture, I think it’s one of the most thought-provoking and potentially rewarding discussions about the Lord that appears anywhere else. I’m talking about the incident that Luke records of two disciples who were walking from Jerusalem to Emmaus on the day that the Lord rose from the dead. I’m gonna be using the Luke material throughout this as the exclusive source if Luke talks about it. If someone else talks about it and Luke didn’t, then we’ll look at that. But the distance that they’re going to walk is beyond what was then viewed as a Sabbath days’ journey, so they couldn’t take this walk on the Sabbath. They had to wait until the first day of the week when the Sabbath was over, which was also the day on which the Lord would be resurrected. The incident appears in Luke chapter 24, and it begins in chapter 24: Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared (Luke 24:1; see also Luke 14:1 RE). He doesn’t tell us this, but there’s a detail you can find over in John chapter 20: The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark (John 20:1; see also John 11:1 RE and Testimony of St. John 12:1 RE). All that Luke says is it was “very early in the morning.” John lets us know that this was not only very early in the morning, it was still dark out. If you brought your Scriptures it might be useful to use them as we go along. So, there is a walk that’s going to take place in which two disciples (we have the names of only one of the two) are walking back to Emmaus, and this is what the account reads, beginning in verse 13: Behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. (Luke 24:13; see also Luke 14:2 RE) That’s about seven miles, which (clearly, under their tradition) would have been too far. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. (vs. 14-16; see also 14:2 RE) “Their eyes were holden.” The Lord is with them. He’s resurrected. He’s walking along with them, and they don’t recognize Him. Christ has the capacity to withhold His identity. As Paul reminded us in Hebrews chapter 13, verse 2: Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. From this incident, on this day with the Lord, we learn that the strangers can include the Lord Himself. And so when He says to be careful how you treat “the least of these my brethren,” you ought not be surprised if, on the day of judgment, one of those “least” was the Lord Himself, and your eyes were holden that you should not know Him. And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that [you] have one to another, as [you] walk, and are sad? (v. 17; see also 14:2 RE) Clearly a rhetorical question. This is the risen Lord joining this fellowship in their walk, and He's asking them, "What are you talking about?" That ought to tell you something about Him. The Lord doesn't make any effort to displace their attention from the subject they're discussing. He joins them right where they are, on the subject that they're focused on, as a ready participant in the subject that's already on the table. That tells you something else about us. He really does want to help us where He finds us. Our concerns are really His concerns. And...one of them, whose name was Cleopas... (v. 18; see also 14:2 RE) Now, I think that's interesting, because I don't want to read too much into that, but I think it's very interesting that we have a name given to one of the two of them. And the name that's given to the one of the two is Cleopas, which is the male… It’s like Stephanie and Stephen. The female is Cleopatra; the male is Cleopas. This is a male version of the name, Cleopatra, which we all think is an Egyptian name. But that’s not true, because Egypt was dominated at that point by the Ptolemies. And Ptolemy was one of Alexander the Great’s generals. He got that quadrant of the empire after Alexander’s death. So it’s really a Greek name derived from the Greeks. And I have a slight suspicion that the presence of that Greek name tells us something about him, maybe tells us something about his parents, maybe suggests that this guy was Hellenized, and if so (because he has kind of a Greek viewpoint), it explains why he’s going to omit from the text (or from his testimony or from Luke’s account of it, anyway) the thing that I want to talk about today. (You can’t be sure of that, and I don’t want to read too much in it because “Jesus” is a Greek name, as well, and He clearly was non-Greek. “Yeshua” or Joshua would have been His given name, but it was turned into the Greek name “Jesus,” and we call Him by that.) A truly Hebrew mind, however, would have been very interested in something different than what the text is gonna tell us about. In any event: ...Cleopas, answering said unto them, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem... That's kind of an amusing thought. See, Christ is not well informed about the local issues, he thinks. [...Are you] a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which have come to pass there in these days? And he said unto [him], What things? (v. 19; see also 14:2 RE) This is the Lord: “What things? Tell me about it.” At the time of the First Vision, the Lord says to Joseph: This is My Beloved Son. Hear [ye] Him! (JS-H 1:17; see also Joseph Smith History 2:4 RE). And then you have the Father and the Son—and a pause. “No sooner had I collected myself than…” Joseph writes. He goes on and asks his question. You have the controlling power of the Universe on standby, waiting for Joseph to formulate and ask the question. That ought to tell you something. “What things?” Christ asks, although He clearly knows. The Lord clearly prefers a dialogue with us. He doesn’t pontificate. He talks. He communicates. He wants it to be… I mean, He insists upon prayer for a reason; He’d like to hear from you—because in the process of hearing from you, you expose something to Him, and you expose something to yourself about yourself. He almost insists on treating us like we’re equals—even though, clearly, we’re not. And that ought to tell you something about yourself as well. All of these things are extraordinary revelations that the Lord is giving to us about who we are and who He is. ...And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and besides all this, to day is the third day since these things were done. Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. (vs. 19-23, emphasis added; see also 14:2 RE) That’s not what happened. That’s not what happened. This is a stranger they’re talking with, and this is what they’re willing to say to the stranger that they’re talking with about what happened. Now, I don’t know if they’re filtering the story because they don’t want to come right out with it or if, in fact, the way they heard it omitted the appearance of the Lord Himself or if they heard the version that was told about the Lord Himself appearing but just couldn’t bring themselves to believe that. But in this account, they admit that certain women went, that they made at least these two astonished. They were early at the sepulcher, no body was found, and they had a vision. That’s all the further they’ll go. But the vision, the “angel,” said He was alive. I have to assume that what Luke is setting out in this story is the version that Luke got from these people. You know, it’s also possible… In fact, this is a good text to go to, to answer one of the criticisms about Joseph Smith. One of the criticisms is that he wrote multiple versions of the First Vision. Yeah, he did—and they’re all instructive, and they’re all useful, but we’ve canonized only one of them. But there’s multiple versions of what went on on the very first day of the Lord having risen from the dead. In one account, we know that the Lord Himself appeared and that, among other things, He told Mary not to hold Him. The King James version says, “Don’t touch me,” but Joseph changes that in the Inspired Version to “Don’t hold me,” because I think implicit in the Joseph Smith change is that she did touch Him. She was not just a witness, but she was someone who felt free to embrace Him, and He said, “Don’t hold me, I have to go appear to my Father and your Father,” which is different than the version that we’ve got here where women are seeing the vision of angels, and they omit the Lord. Well, Joseph gave a version of the First Vision in which he discusses angels, but he omits the Lord. Now, is Luke lying? No more so than Joseph was. But we ought to be consistent in our treatment of Scripture anciently and modern and as fair with Joseph as we are with Luke. The first witnesses of the resurrection were women. This is another confirmation that the Second Comforter is not inhibited by priestly office or limited in His ministry to the brethren. The first witnesses were women, and that should tell us something. I am constantly amazed, however,...