Greek Study for Luke 24:13-35
v13 εν + dat."[that same day]" - τη μια των σαββατων "the first day of the week". Luke is describing the day as the day following the Sabbath, or the eighth day, rather than the first day of the week. It is the day which ushers in a new creation because it is the day during which Jesus rose from the dead. Luke touches on this imagery in 9:28. It was an imagery developed by the Church Fathers
Εμμαους "Emmaus" - This is the only mention of this village by Luke.
v14 ωμιλουν (ομιλεω) imperf. "[they] were talking" the imperfect is typically used for speech since it is an ongoing action (durative).
των συμβεβηκοτων (συμβαινω) perf. part. "[everything] that had happened" – an idiom, read “current events”.
v15 εν τω ομιλειν (ομιλεω) pres. inf. "as they talked [and discussed]" -"during their talking and" συζητειν (συζητεω) pres. inf. "discussed" – they argued, debated. This indicates the discussion was agitated, although not heated.
αυτος "[Jesus] himself" – this is a variant; the pronoun here is emphatic. Evans notes that this resurrection appearance of Jesus is distinctive: in that Jesus enters the scene as a normal person; and the disciples do not recognize him, even though it is only a matter of days since they were with him.
εγγισας (ενγιζω) aor. part. "drew near – was at hand, within reach" - Attendant circumstance so temporal. Jesus also was coming from Jerusalem and caught5 up to them.
v16 εκρατουντο (κρατεω) Imperf. pas. "they were kept from" a divine passive i.e. the disciples were restrained by divine power from recognizing Jesus. It is also possible that the language of sight is used to align with faith such that it is their own doubts and fears that have blinded them to the obvious. The use of this word by Luke is probably intentional given that it is necessary to explain why two disciples, who travelled with Jesus in the past were unable to recognize him in the present.
του μη επιγνωναι (επιγινωσκω) aor. inf. "recognizing" – there is a cognitive disconnect;
v17 αντιβαλλετε (αντιβαλλω) pres. "are you discussing" – literally “what words are you tossing around, debating. A conflict of opinions is implied in the word, so "debating", now to an altercation is indicated.
σκυθρωποι adj. "their faces downcast" – an idiom, they stood still/stopped, sullen.
v18 ονοματι (α ατος) dat. "[one] named, Κλεοπας "Cleopas" – the Semitic name is Clopas, (Mary’s husband?) with the Greek version being Cleopatros (tra would be the female version). Tradition has it that he was Jesus' uncle, i.e. brother of Joseph and that his son Simeon took over the leadership of the Jerusalem church after the death of Jesus' brother James. Eusebius is the source of this tradition, a tradition he draws from the Memoirs of Hegesippus.
παροικεις (παροικεω) pres. "are you [only] a visitor [to Jerusalem] / [the one] visiting [Jerusalem].” The sense of the question rests on the meaning of this word. Most opt for "visitor", so but the question could be sarcastic with the word meaning "stranger", "are you such a stranger that .....?" Modern idiom’ Have you been living under a rock?”
v19 ποια "what things" – αυτοις dat. pro. "he asked"
περι + gen. "about [the things] Jesus of Ναζαρηνου (ος) "Nazareth" – Luke loves to serve up details, place names, people names, it is a way of him inviting others to check the story out for themxs4lvs by asking/visiting.
προφητης (ης ουτ) "a prophet" - apposition to ανηρ, "a man". The two disciples understand Jesus was the long promised messianic prophet, like Moses, who would serve as Israel's liberator. Luke is not critical of their understanding of Jesus as a prophet, the problem lie in failing to understand it was necessary for the messiah to suffer and die and in failing to take Jesus' promise seriously that he would rise on the third day.
v20 παρεδωκαν (παραδιδωμι) aor. "handed [him] over" θανατου (ος) gen. "to death". We have the beginning of a liturgical response to the question “who was this Jesus” – a sort of proto creed.
v21 ημεις ηλπιζομεν (ελπιζω) emphatic imperfect “We had personally hoped"
ο μελλων (μελλω) pres. part. "the one who was going"
λυτρουσθαι (λυτροω) pres. inf. "to redeem [Israel]" – more proto creedal language.
v22 αλλα καιÄ"and also" a strong contrast;
εξεστησαν (εξιστημι) aor. "disturbed [us]" (amazed?)- "amazed", the word carries a touch of awe, supposing a pre-faith response but given the debate that preceded, "disturbed" may be the better use.
v23 μη ευρουσαι (ευρισκω) aor. part. "they didn't find [his body]" – an adverbial participle forming a temporal clause. This states a fact, "some women of our circle disturbed us when, after they went to the tomb early in the morning, they were unable to find his body."
εωρακεναι (οραω) perf. inf. "that they had seen" - expressing what they "said"; "we also saw a vision of angels." Rather than "two men in dazzling cloths", v4, Luke now tells us that what the women saw "a vision of angels". This is sometimes used to assert a non-Lukan source for this tradition. The words of the angels are also different, although both accounts make the same point.
ζην (ζαω) pres. inf. "[he] was alive" – not risen (ανεστασισ) but alive (ζαω). The angels said, namely "he lives."
v24 τινες "some" - it is only Peter who goes to the tomb to confirm the account; Luke seems aware of the Johannine tradition of both Peter and John visiting the tomb.
v25 ανοητοι adj. "foolish" A strong word, read "stupid", some scholars suggest "obtuse" is better. I leave it to you, would Jesus say “How obtuse of you? Or ‘How stupid of you!”
βραδεις adj. "slow" – dilatory τη καρδια (a) dat. "of heart" a Semitism? Remember for the Hebrew, it was the heart that was the seat of the intellect. For Greeks, the heart was the center of emotion. Here Luke seems to be using it as an intellectual assertion. Slow of heart” is an idiom for “slow on the uptake, not the sharpest knife in the drawer…” you get the picture.
του πιστευειν (πιστευω) pres. inf. "to have faith" – an epexegetici.e. "to believe all that the prophets have spoken" explains the substantives "foolish" and "slow of heart". To whit; "How stupid and slow you are to have faith."
v26 Now Luke gives us a summary of the apostolic gospel. Did I mention that this is proto creedal language? I think you have here a seminal evangelical document, the kind of message Luke’s church was packaging and selling to the masses.
v27 αρξομενος (αρχω) aor. part. "beginning" - adverbial, modal, expressing the manner of explanation; "beginning with Moses and proceeding to all the prophets he explained".
v28 Luke continues to relate the events surrounding the journey to Emmaus. Jesus intends to go further, but the disciples beg him to stay with them for the night, presumably at the home of one of them, v28-29.
προσεποιησατο (προσποιεω) "Jesus acted as if" - sometimes translated “Jesus appeared to be going further", or the more blunt "he pretended to go further.” The aversion to "pretend" stems from implied deception. Some suggest it is simply "a literary foil" on the part of Luke to increase "suspense. I think this is most likely, Luke is being a tale teller here.
v29 παρεβιασαντο (παραβιαζομαι) aor. "they urged [him] strongly/pressed him.
λεγοντες (λεγω) pres. part. "-" - saying. μεινον (μενω) aor. imp. "abide/remain”. A plaintive cry, μεθ (μετα) + gen. "with [us προς εσπεραν εστινÄ"it is nearly evening" - it is toward evening. A common phrase for late afternoon.
κεκλικεν ηδη η ημερα "the day is almost over" - the day has tipped.
του μειναι (μενω) aor. inf. "to stay [with them]" – read "he entered [the home] in order to say with them."
v30 Luke now records "how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread" (v35), v30-32. The head of a home would normally say the grace over the meal, but here Jesus takes the lead. This may imply that they are staying at an inn, but not necessarily. In acting as the host, breaking the bread, and saying the words, Jesus is recognized by the disciples. Luke would have us see this recognition as miraculous, a divine initiative, supported by a miraculous disappearance. It has been argued that the oral tradition here has at least been influenced by Eucharistic practice in the early church, (Jeremias Eucharistic Words). It is widely accepted Luke wants to make the point that the Christians of his day were able to have the living Lord made know to them in the Eucharist in a manner that was at least analogous to the Emmaus experience. It is certainly possibly Luke is describing this event in a liturgical way and given the proto creedal language, also fits. Some, however, assert that the breaking of bread' refers to the feeding of the 5000. And refers to the common fellowship meal / agape feast of the early Christian community rather than the Lord's Supper. These two activities were separated early within the history of the New Testament is evidenced in Acts (also by Luke). If Luke is crafting a spiritual paradigm here it is surely that Christ is realized in our midst.
και εγενετο "-" - and it happened. Serving to introduce a narrative.
εν τω/ κατακλιθηναι (κατακλινω) aor. inf. "when [he] was at the table"
λαβων (λαμβανω) aor. part. "he took [the bread]" –
κλασας (κλαω) aor. part. "he broke [it]" - having broken.
All of this action seems a bit to formulaic for me to be referring to an “agape feast”, it is just too close to the actions Paul describes in Corinthians.
v31 διηνοιχθησαν (διανοιγω) aor. pas. "[their eyes] were opened" – another theological passive, i.e. God does the opening.
αφαντος adj. "[he] disappeared]" - There are a number of post resurrection appearances, but this is the only time Jesus disappears without a word. In fact, given that Jesus is now entering into his glory, his visible presence is no longer possible; "this is Luke's contribution to the problem of the resurrection", Danker.
v32 καιομενη η∴ν "were [not our hearts] burning" - "Heart" obviously means "mind", unless the Semitic understanding of "heart" is not present. A "burning mind" is awkward so it may be an idiom, “weren't we excited as he talked to us ..."
v33 ανασταντες (ανιστημι) aor. part. "they got up" – Jesus ‘αναστασισ” prompts their own “getting up” to return", αυτη τη ωρα dat. "that very hour" So it may have been too late for Jesus to travel, but it doesn’t stop them from returning to Jerusalem.
ηθροισμενους (αθροιζω) perf. pas. part. "assembled together" - an object complement to "the eleven", the object of the verb "they found"; "they found the eleven [who were] gathered there with their companions".
v34 οντως "it is true!" – indeed ηγερθη (εγαιρω) aor. pas. "He has risen"
Here it is expressed in the terms of a recounted gospel tradition (the kerygma) rather than a more grammatically correct expression of the words used at the time of speaking. Luke's language is similar to first Corinthians 15:3-5a. (again)
Σιμωνι (ων) dat. "[and has appeared] to Simon" – a dative of direct object. Why "Simon" rather than "Peter"? Only here among the synoptic gospels is an appearance to Peter mentioned. Clearly Paul is aware of such a tradition, as recorded (again) in first Corinthians 15 Are we dealing, once again, of those things that are “passed on as of first importance”?
v35 εξηγουντο (εξηγεομαι) imperf. "[the two] told"