Luke 24:13-27 LSB
And behold, two of them were going that same day to a village named Emmaus, which was sixty stadia from Jerusalem. 14 And they were conversing with each other about all these things which had happened. 15 And it happened that while they were conversing and debating, Jesus Himself approached and was going with them. 16 But their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him. 17 And He said to them, “What are these words that you are discussing with one another as you are walking?” And they stood still, looking sad. 18 And one of them, named Cleopas, answered and said to Him, “Are You the only one visiting Jerusalem and unaware of the things which have happened here in these days?” 19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a mighty prophet in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, 20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to the sentence of death, and crucified Him. 21 But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, it is the third day since these things happened. 22 But also some women among us astounded us. When they were at the tomb early in the morning, 23 and not finding His body, they came, saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said that He was alive. 24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just exactly as the women also said, but Him they did not see.” 25 And He said to them, “O foolish ones and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He interpreted to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
After Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection, two individuals were heading to Emmaus (vs.13). This was approximately 60 stadia from Jerusalem. Cleopas (identified in vs.18) and another (not named) were conversing with each other about all the things that had happened to Jesus. The death, burial, and supposed1 resurrection would have been a massive issue that individuals would have grappled with, especially as they were anxiously waiting for what would happen next. A third figure (Jesus) draws near but they couldn’t recognize him because their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him (vs. 15-16). Jesus asks them what they are talking about (vs. 17), and Cleopas states: “Are You the only one visiting Jerusalem and unaware of the things which have happened here in these days?” not knowing that this was Jesus who he was speaking with. Jesus plays into this by asking “What things?” (vs. 19) They reply, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a mighty prophet in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, 20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to the sentence of death, and crucified Him.” (vs.19-20). Of course Jesus knew all of this, but notice what they were hoping for? They say, “we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, it is the third day since these things happened.” (vs. 21) They hoped that Jesus was going to redeem Israel, which he wasn’t going to do until His 2nd coming [wrongly assuming that *all* the Messiah came to do was establish His kingdom]. Then the women (cf. vs. 11) astounded them, they had gone out to the tomb and declared that Jesus was alive (vs. 22-23). Cleopas and company went to the tomb and confirmed what was stated by the women but they did not see Jesus (vs.24). Just like the apostles in vs.11 their claims appeared to be nonsense. They did not believe the report of the women in full, they simply believed that Jesus was not there because they saw that with their eyes, but failed to believe that he was alive [resurrected] as reported by the women.
Jesus rebukes them in vs.25. He says, “O foolish ones and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?”
Jesus is not rebuking them for not having a proper hermeneutic, he is rebuking them for their lack of faith.
These two had not believed all that the prophets had spoken (likely referring to the fact they only believed that the Messiah would come and restore the Kingdom to Israel, but not that the Messiah also had to suffer). This is why Jesus says, “was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” The notion that Jesus died seemed to militate against His Messiahship, but actually it would prove it, just as it was prophesied! The reason for this confusion was that they were not understanding the Messianic prophecies that pertained to the Messiah’s first coming. This should not have surprised them, this was all predicted to come to pass.
From there, Jesus would demonstrate that indeed the Christ was to suffer these things in His first coming (vs.27). Jesus starts with Moses and then moves through the prophets. He interprets the OT texts and the things which pertained to Himself and His first coming.
Now, the questions that pertain to this text:
1.) Is Jesus building out some sort of Christocentric approach that we should adopt for our hermeneutics and homiletics?
The answer is no! Jesus is merely showing them from the OT divisions where his sufferings fit together with His first coming. He is helping His unbelieving road companions to better understand how the OT predicted His sufferings from the very beginning. Jesus is not establishing a new hermeneutic, nor a Christocentric lens for reading the OT.2 This is a unique situation where Jesus is helping His audience connect theological dots as they pertain to His first coming. For an excellent work on the Messianic Prophecies see: The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy.
2.) What texts did Jesus use?
We don’t know, but we can’t assume from that that Jesus uses every verse in the OT. There was simply no time to expound every single passage in the OT. Kuruvilla correctly notes,
“Examining that text, one must ask what the extent of “in all the Scriptures” (ἐν πάσαις τας γραфας, en pasais tas graphas, 24: 27) is: Is it every portion of Scripture, or every book, or every pericope, or every paragraph, or every verse, or every jot and tittle? The subsequent statements by Jesus to the Emmaus disciples suggest that what is meant is every portion of Scripture— a broad reference to its various parts, primarily the major divisions: Law, Prophets, and Psalms (writings)… Indeed, in 24:27, Jesus mentions only those matters from the OT that actually concern himself (τ περ έαυτου, ta peri heautou); “the things concerning himself”); so also in 24: 44 (περ ἐµο, peri emou, “all things which are written about me”). Thus a selectivity and choice of material is explicit in the text. Jesus is not finding himself in all the texts of Scripture, but rather finding just those texts that concern himself in all the major divisions of Scripture. What is striking is that Jesus is not recognized by the two Emmaus disciples as a result of a christocentric lecture from the OT, one delivered by the Lord himself. Instead, what sparks recognition is the sharing of a meal (24:30–31)!”3
It is more likely as Kuruvilla noted that “a selectivity and choice of material is explicit in the text.” It is one thing to argue that some prophecies contained in three major divisions (Law, Prophets, and Psalms) are focused upon Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection, it is another thing to argue that Jesus is found in each OT text or pericope.
“The same can be said of Jesus’ statements recorded in Luke. The language does not state that Jesus spoke Scripture as all about Himself but rather that which was about Himself (τὰ περὶ ἑαυτοῦ) in Moses and the prophets (Luke 24:27). Jesus is not making every scriptural passage speak of Him but rather highlighting throughout the OT the pertinent passages concerning Himself. In fact, Jesus condemns His disciples for not recognizing what the prophets have spoken. This shows that the hermeneutic the disciples had was adequate to identifying what the prophets spoke. Even more, it shows that Jesus affirms the human authorial intent of the authors.”4
This is further argued by Waymeyer:
“First of all, because there is no record of which specific texts Jesus referred to in Luke 24, advocates of the christological hermeneutic must come to this passage with the presupposition that Christ pointed to Old Testament texts which do not explicitly mention Him. Put another way, they must assume that He jettisoned the grammatical-historical hermeneutic to find references to Himself which could not be found with that hermeneutic alone.”5
3.) Is Jesus saying that every OT text or pericope is about Him?
No, absolutely not! As Vlach correctly notes:
“Because some have misunderstood this text, Jesus is not saying every Old Testament passage directly refers to himself.”6
Mike Pizzi’s illustration is helpful: “As a good friend of mine once illustrated, it’s similar to a man going through an old photo album and showing his wife all the pictures that he himself is in. The proponent of the Christological Hermeneutic would want to affirm that the man was in every picture. But the natural reading of the account would be that the man was in some of the pictures, and those are the ones he showed his wife from the whole album. In a similar way, Luke 24:25-27 definitely affirms that Jesus Christ may be found in the OT, but it cannot be made to say that Jesus is hidden in every OT text, waiting to be uncovered by employing a Christological Hermeneutic.”7
In conclusion: It is important not to come to scripture with hermeneutical presuppositions that are not derived from the bible. The literal grammatical-historical hermeneutic is the only presupposition that is appropriate for interpreting the Word.
For an excellent defence of the Presuppositional Hermeneutic see: https://sakeofthetruth.wordpress.com/2021/05/19/the-presuppositional-hermeneutic-an-argument-for-interpreting-and-preaching-the-bible-with-authority/
References:
1. I am merely stating that Cleopas and company did not accept the reality of the resurrection of Jesus yet.
2. “Luke 24 fails to support a christological hermeneutic in which New Testament revelation is the key to unlocking the meaning of the Old Testament.” Matt Waymeyer, The Relationship of the Testaments: Christological Hermeneutic, 2017. https://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/the-relationship-of-the-testaments-christological-hermeneutic/
3. Abraham Kuruvilla, Privilege the Text!: A Theological Hermeneutic for Preaching, Epub., (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2013), 304-305.
4. Abner Chou, A Hermeneutical Evaluation of the Christocentric Hermeneutic, December 2016, 9. https://www.pre-trib.org/pretribfiles/pdfs/Chou-AHermeneuticalEvalua.pdf
5. Matt Waymeyer, The Relationship of the Testaments: Christological Hermeneutic, 2017. https://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/the-relationship-of-the-testaments-christological-hermeneutic/
6. Michael Vlach, How Does Jesus Fulfill the Old Testament, (Theological Studies Press, 2025), 35.
7. Mike Pizzi, “Luke 24:25-27: Source of an OT Hermeneutic?,” 10. Taken from: Matt Waymeyer, The Relationship of the Testaments: Christological Hermeneutic, 2017. https://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/the-relationship-of-the-testaments-christological-hermeneutic/
