Cleopas – Aspirational Adventures

So maybe this happened Easter Sunday but there’s enough going on I thought I’d share this to. Found in Luke 24:12-35

Scholars like NT Wright and Wayne Grudem have argued that maybe Cleopas was walking home with his wife Mary The artists are Sr Marie-Paul Farrar OSB and Maximo Cerezo Barredo who painted several versions of the meal. Thank you to David Pott for bringing this to my attention.

How often does someone take something, decide they are seeing it as it should, gone on to tell others and that has become fact? It isn’t just in preaching from the pulpit but in many areas of life.

In this story it mentions “that same day two of Jesus’ disciples were going to the village of Emmaus”. It then goes on to mention Cleopas by name. Cleopas has never had a mention in any Jesus stories up to now but he is named by Luke the historian as a disciple. The other disciple never gets a name. It also never says if they were traveling just the two of them. They may have been with a crowd of friends who were not classed as disciples by Luke. So to just says “two of Jesus’ disciples” is accurate but not necessarily the whole story. It could have been just Cleopas and a friend; just Cleopas and his wife, who was also a disciple; Cleopas, his wife and a friend, two of whom were disciples; Cleopas with a small group of people heading home dejected after what had gone on, where Cleopas and someone else were disciples.

It amazes me how we are so quick to make assumptions, which with many of the Bible stories then get “set in stone” by years of preaching. And even with this new thought with these paintings and two amazing scholars making us look at it differently. We do still have to be very careful we don’t take this as the true and accurate picture.

The other day a friend of mine was talking about someone who was self-harming. God led me to pray for this person and I was able to suggest an idea to help my friend help her friend. My friend said this was very helpful because this friend of hers was very intelligent and was a retired professional. Well because I’d been told this person was self-harming I had a picture of her in her 20-30s, brassy blond hair with money problems. My friend hadn’t said that. There was nothing in her narrative that told me that but that was my stereotype from the information I have bubbling around in my brain.

So this is why I think we have to be really careful about how we stereotype and pigeon-hole things. Just because the person in authority in church has been telling us this for many years does not make it true.

But as I was reading this story and writing this blog it suddenly struck me – why did Jesus go and meet up with these people; be they 2 or many? What was it about them that was special?

In Luke’s account we have the women going to the tomb with spices and being told by the angel that Jesus was risen. They then go back to tell the “eleven apostles” [Luke 24:12] who think it is nonsense. Though Peter does go to have a look for himself. So why is Luke’s next scene of the risen Jesus with these two disciples on the road to Emmaus – a place that is not named previously and a disciple who is not named previously?

I think this is why we need to really get lost in the scripture. Most of the Bible is not a great way to learn about storytelling because it comes with many plot-holes. But it is an amazing place to not take things as given, to spend time listening to many different opinions but also spend time exploring it for yourself.

And the exciting thing, because the Bible is called the LIVING WORD of God then it will keep changing depending on how you read it and what God needs to highlight for you. Now that is exciting.

Presumption

I was amazed at my own presumptions the other day. Husband brought back a handout from church around Luke 24:13-35, where the disciples meet Jesus on the road to Emmaus but don’t recognise him.

Lots of it is things I’d known or thought previously but it is Lorna Bradley’s opening line that I’ve been chewing over for weeks now

And their eyes were opened – the two disciples of Jesus – Cleopas and one unnamed and ungendered …..

UNGENDERED!! How many times have I presumed, without even thinking about it, that it was two men? And I’m sure that’s because the Bible says “disciples of Jesus” and for years we’ve been led to presume that ALL Jesus’ real disciples were men even though women are mentioned, but they are there in the supporting role.

Lorna doesn’t say if the other disciple was male, female, trans, non-binary, or whatever. She does not say if they were friends, siblings, parent/child, lovers, spouses. She actually just puts it out there, states, the fact that the other disciple is unnamed and ungendered, and then goes on to explore the piece.

It made me wonder if we would read this piece differently if they were homosexual partners, young unwed lovers, a father and daughter/son, even a married couple. To Luke these are just two disciples of Jesus who were out for a walk trying to piece together what had gone on over the last few days. One is named. One isn’t.

Interestingly the name Cleopas, which appears only in this story in the Bible means “Glory of the Father” or “Glory of Everything” and is either the male derivative of Cleopatra or a shortened version of Cleopatra or shortened version of Cleopatros. So it could be that the Cleopas we’ve always presumed to be male was in fact female as was their traveling companion.

It is the presumption that intrigues me. How many times do we all read things through our own lens of expectation, of prejudice, of culture, of lifestyle, of what we know? How often do we stop to realise what we have done?

But from our own presumptions and censoring and prejudices we tie organisations including religion into boxes, put people groups into boxes, put ourselves and those around us into boxes.

This does follow on from Cultural Diversity and will fit in with the post I am doing for 21st May. That person waving/not waving the Union Jack at the coronation is “obviously ….[fill in your own]. We make presumptions as to whether someone smiles/doesn’t smile at our cheery “good morning”, replies/doesn’t reply to our message, wears certain clothes and talks in a certain way.

And I don’t think God cares. Not that God doesn’t care for people. I believe God cares more than we could ever imagine. But God doesn’t care what gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, family background, education, etc someone has. I think this is why that story has someone in with no gender and the other person with ambiguous gender in it. And if you start looking there are many stories in the bible where once one lets go of one’s presumption then things could be more ambiguous than we’d presumed.

I wonder if I look harder how many stories I can find, where I presumed one thing and so pictured the story in my head a certain way, in fact actually are about “Glory in Everything” and especially “Glory to God” and not to gender, sexuality, orientation, or even belief.

Just this one phrase in Lorna Bradley’s piece has set me off on a whole new way of thinking. As Rick Rubin’s says in The Creative Act [and I paraphrase because I can’t find the actual quote in the book because I’ve underlined so much in there!] “sometimes we need to look at the minute to see the infinite”