Biblically Speaking

Hermeneutical Reflections on N. T. Wright’s Understanding of the Jewish Jesus: Luke 24:13-35 and the Two Travelers to Emmaus

Hermeneutical Reflections on N. T. Wright's Understanding of the Jewish Jesus:   Luke 24:13-35 and the Two Travelers to Emmaus

Do not put words in my mouth.  How many of us have found ourselves giving voice to this request?  How many of us have found ourselves in a position where what we have said has been misrepresented, intentionally or not?  To say the least, we do not appreciate such actions.

Each fall as students come back from their summer vacations, I have the opportunity to introduce them to biblical hermeneutics.  As indicated at the start of the course, hermeneutics is the science and art of interpretation.  Defined as such, all of us are involved in activities related to hermeneutics as we daily arise from bed, exit our homes, and try to make sense of the world around us.  Interpretation is a part of life.  Our class, however, is not just concerned with interpretation in general, but with the interpretation of documents which are foundational for our faith. 

Our understandings of Scripture have consequences.  This is exemplified by Luke 24:13-35, a story about two travelers to Emmaus following Jesus' crucifixion and death.  Interestingly, in this narrative, Jesus appears guilty of what none of us appreciate.  He appears to put words in the mouth of not just one individual, but the mouths of many who were looking for one who was going to "redeem Israel" (24:21, NRSV).  Indirectly, yet importantly, this observation speaks to the interpretative approach to Scriptures taken by N. T. Wright. 

A knowledgeable scholar, charismatic speaker, and prolific writer, Wright exhibits major influence in the church and biblical scholarship at the beginning of the 21^st century.  I appreciate Wright's recognition and acknowledgment that Jesus cannot be understood apart from the Jewish environment in which he was born, lived, and died.  For Wright, Jesus consciously viewed his mission as involving and fulfilling future Jewish hopes concerning the restoration of Israel.  In The New Testament and the People of God, Wright states:  " . . . the events, including the ones that were expected to come at the climax of YHWH's [God's] restoration of Israel, remained within (what we think of as) the this-worldly ambit [sphere of action].  The ‘kingdom of god' has nothing to do with the world itself coming to an end."¹ He goes on to say "That makes no sense either of the basic Jewish worldview or of the texts in which the Jewish hope is expressed."²  

While I appreciate Wright's understanding of the truism that "Jesus was Jewish" and must be understood as such, I question whether or not this observation may be taken too far.  Does Jesus simply reflect the theological understandings of first century Judaism?  In his life and ministry, did Jesus simply seek to fulfill traditional hopes for Israel's restoration?  Insights into these questions are found in Luke 24.  Here we find predictions of Jesus' suffering and death  (24:7, 26, 46) and entrance into glory (24:26) or resurrection (24:7, 46).  What happens to Jesus  corresponds with what Jesus had foretold during his earthly ministry (24:6) or with the fulfillment of scriptural prophecy (24:25, 27, 44).  Luke's emphasis upon Jesus in relation to the fulfillment of Scripture is clearly evidenced in the story of the two travelers in 24:13-35.

With evening approaching, two travelers journeyed toward Emmaus. As they walked together in a tranquil setting, they fervently discussed the events of the preceding days.  Disturbing thoughts appear to have entered their minds.  Their inner selves appear anything but peaceful.  While most of their conversation is left untold, Luke implies great confusion and disillusionment over recent events in Jerusalem.  The source of their turmoil is the death of one on whom they had placed all their hopes for the future, one who they hoped was going to redeem or restore Israel (24:21).   We may wonder, what would this hoped-for activity involve?  Why was it necessary?

The need for restoration derived, in part, from the dispersion of the people of Israel particularly during the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles of the eighth and sixth centuries B.C.  In large part, Israel, a people of tribes, became scattered among the nations of the world.  While future hopes for Israel were multifaceted and, in fact, experienced development between the close of the Old Testament and time of Jesus, a consistent and primary longing concerned the restoration or gathering of the people of Israel, a people always conceptualized as a people of twelve tribes.  Hopes for restoration were not only political, but had a spiritual dimension as well, involving a proper relationship with God. 

The act of Israel's restoration was overwhelmingly attributed to God who gathers scattered Israel.  At times, this restoration was accomplished through a messianic figure or a son of David.  The focus, however, remained on God as the one who brings about the hoped-for deliverance from the nations and return to the land of promise.  Israel's hopes for the future did not simply depend on the normal channels of events relating to politics or even religious institutions, but to the direct action of God on behalf of his people. 

In the time of Jesus, other future hopes relating to Israel's restoration included the concepts of resurrection to participate in the coming messianic kingdom, an outpouring of the Spirit, and Gentiles as being participants in God's blessings on Israel through accepting God themselves.  Absent from all Jewish literature before and during the time of Jesus, however, was the concept presented to the two travelers on the road, a Messiah who suffers and dies as part of God's restorative process.  When Jesus asked the two travelers "Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?" (24:26), he presented an idea finding no basis in their theological understandings from the past.  Luke tells us "Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures (24:27)."

For most of us, the idea of a suffering Messiah seems commonplace.  Our thoughts turn to a passage often used to understand Jesus' death such as Isaiah 53:7.  This text declares: "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth."  While for the author of Isaiah 53 this suffering individual represented God's servant Israel, a more appropriate picture of Jesus' death on the cross is hard to imagine.  These words accurately reflect what occurred and how the early Christian church understood his death.

This observation is evidenced in chapter 4 of the book of Revelation.  Here, the reader is invited into the very throne room of God.  The imagery provides a sense of wonder and awe as continual praises are offered by "the four living creatures and twenty-four elders who surround the throne.   In chapter five, a scroll appears "written on the inside and on the back, sealed with seven seals" (v. 1).  A mighty angel then loudly declares "Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?   The seals must be opened for God's purposes for humanity to unfold.

At first, there was great dismay because no one was found worthy of this task.  John, author of the work (1:9-11), describes himself as weeping bitterly over this circumstance.  When all seems hopeless, however, a Lamb appears "standing as if it had been slaughtered. . . ." Of this lamb, it is declared (v. 9), "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation. . . ."   The necessity of Jesus' suffering in the fulfillment of God's saving aims for humanity is evident.

How then are we to understand Jesus' interaction with the two travelers on the road to Emmaus?  Certainly the witness of the New Testament declares Jesus as the fulfillment of Scriptures.  Honesty, however, demands a recognition that, in depicting himself as the Messiah who must suffer in accordance with God's saving plans (24:26-27), Jesus is presenting something new.   He is putting words into the mouths of those prophets of old.  In the language of the science fiction classic Star Trek, he is "boldly going where no one has gone before."

What are the implications of this observation?  If we accept that the story of the two travelers  derives from a genuine historical tradition and not simply the creative mind of  Luke or the early church, Jesus himself began the interpretive practice of reading and understanding the Old Testament in light of himself.  Only he would have such authority.  Only he had the right to put words into others' mouths, interpreting the prophets of old in a manner beyond their own levels of understanding.  This practice, initiated by Jesus, is then evidenced elsewhere by New Testament writers.  As stated in Introduction to Biblical Interpretation by Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, "Clearly the writers of the NT were convinced that they had entered a new era of redemptive history with the coming of Jesus.  Naturally, they read the OT in a new light, a process Jesus himself encouraged. . . ."³

How does all this relate to Wright's interpretive approach to understanding Jesus?  Simply put, it would seem that Wright and others who rightly recognize the Jewishness of Jesus should be cautious in trying to keep Jesus within those boundaries.  Problematic is an interpretative principle which implies Jesus would not have made statements going beyond Jewish understandings or expectations. The recognition that Jesus was not bound by inherited Jewish traditions is germane. 

An ever present temptation for any scholar is to develop a certain understanding of Scripture and  force all seemingly divergent traditions into that mold.   In so doing, words may be put into Jesus' (or other New Testament witnesses to him) mouth, not allowing him to take us beyond the boundaries of all that has gone before.  Jesus was indeed the one to redeem or restore Israel, but in a much greater and different way than had ever been imagined.

1.        N. T. Wright, "The New Testament and the People of God,"  vol. 1, Christian Origins and the Question of God ( Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 285

2.        Ibid.

3.       William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas:  Word Publishing, 1993), 129