Luke 24:13-35 Disciples on the Road to Emmaus a husband and wife?

  • Thread starter Thread starter spangler1982
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

spangler1982

Guest
I recently attended a talk by a Catholic bishop who is the head of a local diocese, and he included the story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus. In his talk, he suggested that perhaps the 2 disciples were a married couple. Could this be possible? If so, how likely do you think could be that was the case?
 
I don’t think this is true.

We know that 1 of the disciples on the road to Emmaus is Cleopas. I think that Cleopas’ wife, Mary, is at the Cross (John 19) and helps to prepare Jesus’ body for the tomb (Luke 23). The only caveat to this is that Luke calls Mary the wife of Clopas. In Luke 24, it says that the women came back on Sunday to prepare the body, which implies that its the same women.

With this in mind, it seems that the Disciples wouldn’t use the words Some women from our group, however, have astounded us: they were at the tomb early in the morning and did not find his body; they came back and reported that they had indeed seen a vision of angels who announced that he was alive. It seems that Cleopas would have said, my wife has seen a vision of angels who announced that he was alive!
 
NotWorthy said:
. . .

With this in mind, it seems that the Disciples wouldn’t use the words Some women from our group, however, have astounded us: they were at the tomb early in the morning and did not find his body; they came back and reported that they had indeed seen a vision of angels who announced that he was alive. It seems that Cleopas would have said, my wife has seen a vision of angels who announced that he was alive!
Click to expand...
I have seen it suggested that it was Clopas and his wife. It was suggested that
That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles * from Jerusalem, 14 and talking with each other about all these things that had happened.
Click to expand...
is a polite term for the fact that they were having a major fight. She had been working with Jesus for some time, and Clopas was telling her it was time to give it up and pay some attention to their home. It that circumstance he might disparagingly say some women.

Just speculation.
 
Joe_Kelley said:
I have seen it suggested that it was Clopas and his wife. It was suggested that is a polite term for the fact that they were having a major fight. She had been working with Jesus for some time, and Clopas was telling her it was time to give it up and pay some attention to their home. It that circumstance he might disparagingly say some women.

Just speculation.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you are 100% correct. All of that is pure speculation! 😉

I think someone is trying to do too much mental gymnastics in order to come to a pre-conceived opinion. What was the conclusion of the one who proposed this? That women should be priests?
 
spangler1982 said:
I recently attended a talk by a Catholic bishop who is the head of a local diocese, and he included the story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus. In his talk, he suggested that perhaps the 2 disciples were a married couple. Could this be possible? If so, how likely do you think could be that was the case?
Click to expand...
Of course it’s possible. Whether it’s likely or not is entirely up to personal speculation.
 
Why would it matter ? Not being negative about the idea just wondering,
 
Oh, this Bishop is known to be rather liberal at times… it was my gut feeling that he was trying to suggest that during the time of Jesus, women had discipleship roles much more similar to men than what has been traditionally believed… Just wanted to check this gut response to what others on here might think.
 
I have heard this possibility discussed by some very conservative Evangelicals, so I don’t think it’s necessarily connected with any kind of “liberal agenda.”

Luke 24:10 seems to say that only 3 women went to the tomb - Mary Magdalene, Joanna and “Mary the mother of James” - which then opens the mobius loop that is the question of whether Cleopas and Alphaeus are two different people or the same person.

Why would it be “a problem” if it turned out that it was Cleophas and his wife? Aside from some works of art that would prove to have been inaccurate? Is there any doctrine or even tradition that hangs on this having been two men? The gospel doesn’t say they celebrated Eucharist, it says the Lord did.
 
This is a great question! I first heard this possibility mentioned by Dr. Tim Gray on one of his Bible Study series on the EWTN website under audio archives. The main reason It’s so intriguing is that in vs. 31 after Jesus blessed and broke the bread and distributed it, “With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him.” The ‘eyes are opened’ and recognition language is identical to that used in Genesis after Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the Knowledge of good and evil. Since this Early Church Fathers taught that the Cross is the Tree of Life, and the Eucharist is the fruit of the Tree of Life (and with the Eucharist we are given eternal life (ref Jn 6:54)), it makes sense that another couple would eat from the “Tree of Life” and gain eternal life, rather than death as in the case of Adam and Eve. Also, if these disciples were a couple and they were quarreling beforehand, after receiving the Eucharist their relationship seamed healed, whereas in Adam and Eve’s case, they had a balanced relationship beforehand, but after eating the fruit, their marriage relationship was broken through sin. I think one could see it as how our marriage relationship to Christ through the Church is strengthened and healed by receiving the Eucharist.
 
gugg15 said:
This is a great question! I first heard this possibility mentioned by Dr. Tim Gray on one of his Bible Study series on the EWTN website under audio archives. The main reason It’s so intriguing is that in vs. 31 after Jesus blessed and broke the bread and distributed it, “With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him.” The ‘eyes are opened’ and recognition language is identical to that used in Genesis after Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the Knowledge of good and evil. Since this Early Church Fathers taught that the Cross is the Tree of Life, and the Eucharist is the fruit of the Tree of Life (and with the Eucharist we are given eternal life (ref Jn 6:54)), it makes sense that another couple would eat from the “Tree of Life” and gain eternal life, rather than death as in the case of Adam and Eve. Also, if these disciples were a couple and they were quarreling beforehand, after receiving the Eucharist their relationship seamed healed, whereas in Adam and Eve’s case, they had a balanced relationship beforehand, but after eating the fruit, their marriage relationship was broken through sin. I think one could see it as how our marriage relationship to Christ through the Church is strengthened and healed by receiving the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
very interesting. Also a way of healing marriage today.
 
spangler1982 said:
Oh, this Bishop is known to be rather liberal at times… it was my gut feeling that he was trying to suggest that during the time of Jesus, women had discipleship roles much more similar to men than what has been traditionally believed… Just wanted to check this gut response to what others on here might think.
Click to expand...
read the Gospels if you want an idea of what discipleship looked like during the time of Jesus.
 
diggerdomer said:
read the Gospels if you want an idea of what discipleship looked like during the time of Jesus.
Click to expand...
Can you be more specific?

The person that spangler talked about had a point. The women were most loyal disciples during the time of Jesus (besides John, they were the only ones who remained with Jesus throughout His Crucifiixion). And in Acts, we see Lydia and Priscilla (the wife of Aquila) having rather significant discipleship roles.

I just get the feeling that some people who take the tact of the OP’s question tend to use this to explain that women ought to be priests. :eek: :tsktsk:
 
"As he is walking along, Christ meets two men who have nearly lost all hope. They are beginning to feel that life has no meaning for them. Christ understands their sorrow; he sees into their heart and communicates to them some of the life he carries within himself .When they draw near the village, he makes as if he is going on, but the two disciples stop him and practically force him to stay with them. They recognize him later when he breaks the bread. The Lord, they exclaimed, has been with us! And they said to each other: “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the open road, while he opened to us the scriptures?”
Navarre Bible footnote
 
thomas_jd said:
"As he is walking along, Christ meets two men who have nearly lost all hope. They are beginning to feel that life has no meaning for them. Christ understands their sorrow; he sees into their heart and communicates to them some of the life he carries within himself .When they draw near the village, he makes as if he is going on, but the two disciples stop him and practically force him to stay with them. They recognize him later when he breaks the bread. The Lord, they exclaimed, has been with us! And they said to each other: “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the open road, while he opened to us the scriptures?”
Navarre Bible footnote
Click to expand...
Where does the Gospel indicate Christ met two men?
 
NotWorthy said:
Can you be more specific?

The person that spangler talked about had a point. The women were most loyal disciples during the time of Jesus (besides John, they were the only ones who remained with Jesus throughout His Crucifiixion). And in Acts, we see Lydia and Priscilla (the wife of Aquila) having rather significant discipleship roles.

I just get the feeling that some people who take the tact of the OP’s question tend to use this to explain that women ought to be priests. :eek: :tsktsk:
Click to expand...
I don’t think I can be more specific than the Gospels. Sorry.
 
Could this passage be a proof for Christ’s presence in the Holy Eucharist? Especially considering the fact that right after Jesus broke and blessed the bread he vanished from there sight. Was this to prove his presence in the Eucharist?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top