Luke 24:13

13. Two of them Two from them; that is from among the Christian body. One of them is named; but, says Bloomfield, “the evangelist, by omitting the other, has greatly exercised the commentators in guessing.” The best conclusion, as Stier thinks, is that of the German preacher: “Since the apostle has not named the other, let each of you put himself in his place.” You may learn much from such company. We make little doubt that Luke intends us to understand that the unnamed disciple was the evangelist himself. For, 1. His naming Cleopas shows a purpose to indicate that his not naming the other was not because he did not know his name. He could have named the other if some reason did not Deuteronomy 2:0. That reason probably was the same reason which deterred John from mentioning his own name modesty. Thus we bring John , Mark, (see note on Mark 14:51,) and Luke under the same analogy. All three beheld Jesus, and all three introduce their own persons without mentioning their own names. 3. Two evangelists were chosen eye-witnesses. (See note on Luke’s preface.) The other two were not official eye-witnesses and ministers of the word; but each once saw the Lord; Mark as Jesus was on his way to death, Luke as he was on his way from death. This is one of the thousand delicate and occult proprieties which the thorough student of the Bible finds. 4. Cleopas is apparently the elder and more positive Christian of the two. Luke was the subordinate, deeply interested in the scene, and perhaps but newly acquainted with its facts. This may have been his first full contact with Jesus and his history; and by this rencontre, and the marvellous discourse of Jesus, his heart may have been profoundly awakened to a burning interest in the whole of the Lord’s earthly life. Thus was he prepared for his work as an historian. 5. The details of the whole incident are those of deeply interested memory. There are throughout, all the delicate touches of one who narrates an old and touching reminiscence. 6. The only counter argument is drawn from the fact that Luke professes not to have been an eye-witness. Not quite so. Luke professes to have obtained his history from eye-witnesses; which fact he states in order to show the reliability of his history. But that can hardly be strained into a denial that he ever saw Jesus in a single instance. Though Jesus in his resurrection body may once have crossed his sight, it was none the less necessary for his work that he should strictly canvass the original eye-witnesses of the Lord’s earthly life, and none the less important to the confirmation of his work that he should declare the originality of his sources.

To a village called Emmaus See notes on parallel passage in Mark. It took Dr. Thomson three hours’ moderate riding over hill and vale to arrive at Jerusalem from the place he identifies as Emmaus.