I'm about to illustrate the story of the two disciples who met Jesus on the road to Emmaus, as part of the 'Resurrection story'. I remember hearing recently the suggestion that this couple were in fact husband and wife as opposed to the two men that we normally see depicted!
No explanation was given though, and I can't see any good reasons in scripture to believe it was so. Am I missing something?
I was wondering if anyone else had heard this suggestion, and what the reasoning was behind it? As usual. I welcome all comments!
18 comments:
I don't know but there's a lot that's left vague in the Bible.
The Bible also never explicitely said that there were 'three kings' only that there were wise men and that they brought three gifts ... There rest was interpolated later one.
Thanks Daldianus, check out the other posts on the wise men, you might find them helpful.
You have some interesting blogs! Many of the issues that you struggle with on 'Blogging the Bible' and 'Questions about Christian Concepts' can by resolved by visiting a good 'Christian Apologetics' site. There are a few links to some of these on this blog. Hope you find them helpful.
Thanks but the answers from the apologist web sites don't really make sense either in the end.
I'm ok with not believing though.
Cleopas (the only named traveller in this passage) is sometimes thought to be Clopas who is mentioned elsewhere in the gospels as husband of Mary (see links below). Maybe this is where the assumption comes from that he is travelling with his wife. I would also point out that there is nothing to suggest that they were not travelling with a large group of people since travelling alone or in small numbers at that time was probably quite dangerous. Maybe his wife was with him, but was not the other person that is mentioned. I would have thought that the two people that were spoken of were both men due to the manner with which they were discussing the matter at hand. I wonder if the other traveller was actually Luke.
Wikipedia: Cleopas
Catholic Encyclopedia: Cleopas
I do understand what you are saying about Apologetics Daldianus. Whether we accept the explanations that apologetics sites provide is largely dependent on whether we believe or not in the first place. A true skeptic would probably not be swayed.
However, "being o.k. with not believing" is not the best position to be in either. You probably wouldn't be swayed by debating, but don't worry too much about that, as it's the job of the Holy Spirit to convict people of their sin, and reveal the Saviour.
My question to you would be "Are you serious about seeking God?" because if you're not, He will not be found by you. Most, if not all, of the questions on your blog can be answered by a believing heart!
That makes a lot of sense rjjm! Thanks for that!
bible artist:
>However, "being o.k. with not believing" is not the best position to be in either. You probably wouldn't be swayed by debating, but don't worry too much about that, as it's the job of the Holy Spirit to convict people of their sin, and reveal the Saviour.
The Holy Spirit isn't doing a very good job then to convince me and reveal the saviour. I only see ancient myths from superstitious people whose knowledge was very limited.
>My question to you would be "Are you serious about seeking God?" because if you're not, He will not be found by you. Most, if not all, of the questions on your blog can be answered by a believing heart!
If you mean 'by closing your eyes and blindly believing and accepting mysteries' then I guess you're right. But I'm not able to do that. Seems like I'm destined for Hell then. If that's where you so-called loving God will send me. Assuming he exists.
"The Holy Spirit isn't doing a very good job then to convince me..."
Give Him a little more time Daldienus, His timing is perfect!
A believing heart could be seen as 'blindly accepting mysteries', As I mentioned earlier, it really depends on where you're coming from! A believing heart can also unlock many mysteries too!
"Seems like I'm destined for Hell then. If that's where your so-called loving God will send me".
As you probably already know, we are entering into a fascinating area with this statement Daldianus, so as this blog is really for Bible artists and those who use Bible art in their ministry, I was wondering if we could carry on this discussion by email. My direct email address is on my profile.
Many thanks and I look forward to our discussion.
An explanation of the man and woman story Graham from the Worcester Diocese website-
"The man is named as Clopas or Cleopas (Luke 24:18). Elsewhere, a woman named Mary (often called "the other Mary" to distinguish her from Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene) is named as the wife of Clopas (John 19:25). Still elsewhere, this Mary is identified as the mother of the Apostle James the Less and Joses (Mark 15:40). So the most likely companion for Clopas on the Road to Emmaus would be his wife Mary, who had been a witness to the Crucifixion and to the empty tomb (Mark 16:1)."
Of course this is the same explanation that rjjm previously mentioned.
This argument does make a good case for one of the travelers being female.
It hinges though on whether the Cleopas mentioned is the same one that was married to Mary.
Good work folks, thanks for that!
I tend to agree with rjjm and think the two people were men. They talk to the risen Jesus about women in such a manner as to imply neither of them is a woman. "Some women from our group..."
Even if Cleopas is the same person mentioned elsewhere it doesn't automatically follow that he was travelling with his wife on the road.
Yes, on reflection, the language used is probably a stronger indicator, (than the Cleopas connection), that they were both male. As rjjm has mentioned, it is also possible that Cleopas' wife was still traveling with him as part of a larger group of travelers.
Sometimes we need to consider what details may have been omitted from a story due to the fact that the writer considered these details to be unimportant, which of course they are, unless you are trying to illustrate the story!
Yes that's something of a dilemma for Bible artists Graham. What to include that may not be mentioned in the text. All illustrations (that I know of) show only two figures with Jesus. Whenever I've read this account it has never occurred to me that the two people were part of a larger group. The account says they did not recognize Jesus. It doesn't mention a larger group also not recognizing him. The beauty of this story is the intimacy between the two people and the risen Jesus and their ultimate recognition of him. I would illustrate it as it is described and forget about any background figures. They would only distract from the purpose of the story. And I personally doubt there were any other people present.
I know this is a year late, but I firmly believe that the it is Mary whom Christ appears too - I don't care what the "language" make you think. He chose Mary M. Pre-accession and women are extremely scared to Him. Women have been shafted out of the scriptures and religious art ever since His' death. At least HE loves us - unlike most Christians.
Now back to my research on her.
I agree that Mary Magdalene has been cast as a "scarlet woman" by the early church. Sadly that stereotype has stuck with us down the centuries. Relegating important female figures in the gospels to reformed harlots etc. is a disturbing aspect of both Catholic and Protestant teaching and reflects the male psyche that feels threatened by powerful females.
Hopefully we are emerging from this dark tunnel.
The idea that they are husband and wife comes from the fact that they seemed to share a house.
Post a Comment