Standing Under the Scriptures
April 13, 2008

Dear Fellow Voyagers,

Our readings for this week are,

Acts 2.42-47: Those converted in the wake of Pentecost were led to live communally.

John 10.1-10: Jesus stresses the door of the sheepfold as the way for the shepherd to enter and himself as he door.

Our readings last Sunday were you will recall firstly a portion of Peter’s address to the bystanding crowd attracted by the ecstatic speech of the disciples at Pentecost (Acts 2.14a, 36-42) and, secondly, the encounter with the risen Christ of the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24.13-35). Our discussion of both was fruitful; still it stopped short of making explicit some things that were implicit in these readings. I will now undertake to repair our, or rather my, lapse.

Regarding the he Acts passage, we noted that Peter’s address constituted the first going public of the post-resurrection gospel, outside the disciples’ own circle. His unabashed declaration was “Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” We noted also that in the response of the crowd to his address the constituent elements of the church are already to be seen. These were firstly conversion, itself consisting of repentance (“Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart”) and baptism, then of devotion to “the apostles’ teaching and fellowship [i.e. Scripture], to the breaking of bread and the prayers” [i.e. Eucharist]. We might have gone on to call this the big bang of the church, on analogy with the conventional big bang, in which the constituent elements of the universe are supposed to have become present, to be spread abroad in its rapid expansion. (In the case of the church’s big bang, at least we are told who caused it.)

Further, these constitutive elements of the church give us a standard by which to measure our own participation in it. Have we, like these first converts, given up any pretension to our own righteousness? Are we devoted to the apostles’ “teaching and fellowship” so that we truly stand under Scripture? Are we devoted also to the breaking of bread and the prayers, to a Eucharistic participation that is not just regular but deeply felt? In honesty I think we must say no. But the Lord is always ready to accept us in our contrition.

The Gospel passage is a captivating one, telling of the journey of two disciples from Jerusalem to Emmaus. It is the day of Jesus’ resurrection but they are unaware except for some vague reports. And they are trying to make sense of what has happened, namely his trial and crucifixion. As they walk along, Jesus himself joins them. It is not given to them to recognize him; nevertheless he is able to show them how these events accord with Scripture: “Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” On arrival at Emmaus he accepts to stay with them. At table he takes the bread, blesses and breaks it, and gives it to them. They then recognize him, but in that moment he vanishes from their sight.

Luke’s artistry in telling this story should not obscure from us its very serious meaning. In fact it has five elements which, unless we grasp them, we will have failed to comprehend it. (The first four were signalled in the sentence with which I introduced the Gospel reading at the 11 o’clock service; the fifth came only from a question of a member of the class.)

To begin with, despite the mildness of Luke’s language about them, these two disciples would have been in utter despair. Jesus had been central to their own lives and was their hope for the redemption of Israel as well. Yet their chief priests and rulers had abruptly taken him away, leaving them seemingly empty. Our own encounters with despair may not attain to the intensity of theirs---or they may. But in any case we have their experience to relate ours to, thereby putting it into redemptive context.

Secondly, it is the risen Christ who joins them as they discuss, or agonize over, these things; it is God himself in the person of his Son. If they do not recognize him, it is not because they are heedless but rather because what has occurred is unique in history and, from a human standpoint, not immediately comprehensible. To equate it with one’s own failure to pick up signals from a friend is to miss the point of the passage, and of Easter as well.

Thirdly, the beginning of their recognition comes from Scripture, from the Old Testament that is. The New Testament is shot through with the concept of continuity with the Old. This points to the importance of our being in continuity with Scripture, with both Testaments (aka standing under the Scriptures). For out of this continuity, essentially, comes our own knowledge of Christ.

Fourthly, the disciples’ recognition of Jesus, the opening of their eyes, was completed in his Eucharistic action, his taking, blessing, breaking, and distributing to them the bread of their common meal. Thus, however important Word may be in our knowing Christ, Sacrament is necessary also, the rite in which the bread and the wine become for us his body and blood. For in it his presence goes beyond being abstract to becoming tangible.

The final element to be grasped is Jesus’ vanishing from the disciples’ sight in the moment of their recognition of him. This may be counterintuitive. Having won through to recognition of him, ought they not to have been allowed to avail themselves of his guidance, to ask him the questions that they would like to put to him? But in so doing they would be assimilating him to their own categories. So to do is indeed is our common tendency. But it means placing him under our control rather than placing ourselves under his control. And this, as Karl Barth constantly pointed out, God does not allow, for our sake rather than his own.

See you Sunday.

Faithfully, Fr. Ted