Why was Jesus unrecognised?

[marco]

Luke tells us two people were going to Emmaus, one was somebody called Cleopas and the other unnamed. Jesus entertains them to tales of Moses and Abraham. They do not recognise the man as being Jesus, so possibly he is NOT Jesus. Luke introduces some light humour -the man pretends he knows nothing and the two characters tell him what has been happening. Later they eat together and it dawns on the pair that they are with Jesus, not his cousin.

a) Why does some nonentity star in the story?

b) Given the enormity of the reported event, why does Luke keep the identity of the other person a secret?

c) Why would Christ use rumour and doubt rather than astounding clarity to prove he was risen.

d) Is there a case for concluding the resurrection tale is fictional?

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

There's much speculation about the person with Cleopas. Some would want it to be Luke himself, coyly declining to cover himself in glory. But as a person writing about events and using other people's notes, it would be an amazing revelation were he to say: "I actually spoke to the risen Christ. Didn't recognise him at first - then all became clear." That would put the rest of his notes into second place.

However, Christianity seems to be about guesswork and drawing conclusions from doubtful accounts. The onus was on Jesus to offer clarity: instead, he played a game with a couple of characters wandering near Jerusalem. He was willing to show Thomas his wounds (Why on eath did heaven not heal the man properly?) but to the world he offers ambiguity and doubt. Blessed are those who believe without satisfactory evidence.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

WHY DID JESUS DISCIPLE NOT RECOGNISE HIM AFTER THE RESURRECTION?

• Cleopas and his companion were not the only disciples that didn't initially recognise the resurrected Christ. Mary Magdelene, a very close disciple and friend of Jesus, is reported to have mistaken him for the gardener although it seems he was close enough at the time, for her to exchange words with him and there is no report of him concealing his face. Cleopas and his friend spent at least a number of minutes, possibly a number of hours with him, yet failed to recognise him. While we don't know how close they were to Jesus the man, since they were disciples, it's unlikely they didn't know what he looked like, especially as their later comments indicate they had eaten a meal with Jesus before his death on more than one occasion. We even have John's comment regarding a group of disciples that included least five of his APOSTLES which states: "Not one of the disciples had the courage to ask him: "Who are you?" because they knew it was the Lord."* So why did Jesus friends they not recognise him after his resurrection?
  

  * NOTE Jesus had appeared to the APOSTLES a few days earlier and convinced them he was alive, so the account in Galilee was not the first time they were seeing the resurrected Jesus. Its unlikely they had already forgotten what he looked like then so its possible, he again appeared different.

The options are either their perceptions where altered (so in reality Jesus looked the same but they could not see him as he was). Or that Jesus actually looked different.

• We cannot be dogmatic about it but the likelihood is, Jesus looked different. Jesus appeared to them in a physical body but he was no longer human. Having died as a man he was raised as a spirit. Of course humans cannot see spirits but there are numerous accounts in the bible of spirits (angels) "materializing" (taking on a physical form) so that humans can see them. Often in the bible these "materialized" angels/spirits simply looked like ordinary men (no wings, no supernatural glow) and the people did not know they were interacting with spirits until after the event or after they subsequently witnesses a manifestation of supernatural power.
  
  Given the above, Jesus as a "materialized" spirit was not obliged to appear in a body that was the exact replica of the one he died in. Indeed arguably it was important that his disciples understood he was no longer human, something that may have been harder to grasp if he looked exactly the same.
  
  While some argue Jesus was resurrected in the same body (miraculously healed of the gruesome wounds it must have carried) , the theological arguement is that that body was offered "once for all time" as a sacrifice to God. Jesus could no more reclaim that exact body than he could his human life, not without invalidating the sacrifice.

CONCLUSION In all likelihood Jesus friends did not initially recognize him because he appeared to them in a body that was different to that which he had when he was a man.



JW




Further reading: The resurrection of Jesus: Did it really happen?
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... n-of-jesus


Are angels and spirits different "life forms"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 78#p846578

JESUS RESURRECTION

Was Jesus resurrected as a human being?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 44#p909944

Was Jesus resurrected in a spiritual or physical body?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 16#p753616

If Jesus was resurrected as a spirit, how could he show Thomas the sounds on his body?
viewtopic.php?p=1063505#p1063505

Did Jesus post resurrection body carry the wounds inflicted on it during his execution ?
viewtopic.php?p=967900#p967900

Why did Jesus' disciples not recognise him after his resurrection?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 49#p967749

Why could God not simply give Jesus back his old body?
viewtopic.php?p=1035994#p1035994

If Jesus was not raised in the same body, why was the tomb empty?
viewtopic.php?p=1036029#p1036029

Was Mary able to touch the risen Christ?
viewtopic.php?p=908706#p908706

To read more please go to other posts related to...

THE RESURRECTION , JESUS RESURRECTION and ... RESSURECTION CHRONOLOGY

NOTE All posts I write represent my personal faith based beliefs as one of Jehovah's Witnesses

[1213]

...
c) Why would Christ use rumour and doubt rather than astounding clarity to prove he was risen...

Probably because “astounding clarity� wouldn’t make any meaningful difference.

[marco]

Given the above, Jesus as a "materialized" spirit was not obliged to appear in a body that was the exact replica of the one he died in.

It seems to have been sufficiently similar as to have carried the wounds he received.

CONCLUSION In all likelihood Jesus friends did not initially recognize him because he appeared to them in a body that was different to that which he had when he was a man.

If he looked different, he was different, and possibly NOT Jesus at all. This would circumvent the problem of accepting miracles if a very ordinary, earthly explanation is available.

[marco]

Probably because “astounding clarity� wouldn’t make any meaningful difference.

Oh, indeed it would. When I read that Nelson foolishly wore his ostentatious uniform and was shot by a sniper at Trafalgar, having been easy to spot, I can accept this lucid explanation.

Perhaps if we had some DNA from the risen Jesus we might find abnormalities in it. Instead we have stories. He was not recognised. His BIG ACT was clouded in doubt. Somebody called Cleopas steps into the story from nowhere.

[Mithrae]

Somebody called Cleopas steps into the story from nowhere.

Luke and John seem to share a distinct source or strand of traditions with each other:
Only Luke and John have two angels at the tomb
Only Luke and John have Jesus showing his crucifixion wounds
Only Luke and John use the name 'Lazarus'
Only Luke and John use the name 'Martha' (with a sister Mary in both)

John also uses the name 'Clopas' so - given the relative rarity of the name and variations in spelling between manuscripts - odds are that's the same guy as Luke's Cleopas. John 19:25 suggests that Clopas was the husband of Mary's sister Mary; one way or another that'd make him the uncle of Jesus. If so it would not be particularly surprising if some folk remembered his name, but not the other guy on the road with him.

a) Why does some nonentity star in the story?

b) Given the enormity of the reported event, why does Luke keep the identity of the other person a secret?

[Imprecise Interrupt]

One possibility is that Luke names one of the disciples simply as part of fleshing out the details of his story in contrast to Matthew’s rather bare bones narrative about the disciples seeing Jesus in Galilee. Note that Luke devotes something like 500 words (in Greek) to this side story but mentions the name Cleophas only once. Otherwise it is always ‘they’. But naming one of them makes it sound more ‘real’, especially since it is that person who speaks. It is not that the other person’s identity is ‘secret’. Why two people then? Because their talking together is the excuse for Jesus to ask them what they are talking about.

In addition to Luke’s 500 words for that side story, Luke devotes over 250 words to the disciples seeing Jesus in Jerusalem. By contrast, Matthew devotes a mere 82 words to his entire description of the disciples seeing Jesus in Galilee and has no counterpart to the road to Emmaus passage. Matthew includes in his narrative the phrase ‘some doubt’ (ΕΔΙΣΤΑΣΑ�). It is perhaps interesting that this word, meaning ‘they hesitate’ or ‘they doubt’, is literally ‘they two-stand’ conveying the sense of wavering. Might this have been Luke’s inspiration for having two ‘doubters’? And later for having Jesus prove it is really him with the hands and feet thing and eating the fish, dispelling doubt?

So why did the two disciples not recognize Jesus? Because they were prevented from doing so.

ΟΙ ΔΕ ΟΦΘΑΛΜΟΙ ΑΥΤΩ� ΕΚΡΑΤΟΥ�ΤΟ ΤΟΥ ΜΗ ΕΠΙΓ�Ω�ΑΙ ΑΥΤΟ�
The yet eyes of-them were-held of-the no to-recognize him
Yet their eyes were held from recognizing him

(‘The yet’? In Greek a conjunction appears as the second word of a clause.)

If they recognized Jesus right away, Luke would not have had the opportunity to put in all that prophesy stuff.

[marco]

[Replying to post 7 by Mithrae]


I know the disputes about Cleopas and Clopas. I see that some would want the other guy to be Luke, as that would give a nice touch to the tale.

An event of universe-shattering importance occurs. Some unnamed person is strolling away from Jerusalem with somebody called Cleopas. Is this how the world receives verification of a resurrection?

If we are going to enter the territory of "if", then perhaps we should start with the idea that it was not the dead Jesus who walked to Emmaus, but somebody else. Why is it preferable to accept a risen corpse rather than another person?

[marco]

If they recognized Jesus right away, Luke would not have had the opportunity to put in all that prophesy stuff.

I think an assessment of literary creativity is in order. Perhaps the name Cleopas, like the name Theophilus, conveys its own general meaning. But one should raise an eyebrow at the event being recounted without specific names being given, since these people, who spoke to the risen Christ, would, ipso fact, rise to huge importance by their testimony. That Christ seems playful after his traumatic re-emergence from death is maybe more miraculous than odd.

It may have been the entire tale was based on a vague rumour, and elaborated; or made up from start to finish; or if we are to give it credit, then perhaps some background plot involved a man similar in appearance to the dead Christ and wine and wishing contributed to Christ's later recognition.