Come Share the Lord: Part 5: 'Tho Unseen?
We are now a family
Of which the Lord is Head;
Tho’ unseen He meets us here
In the breaking of the bread.
Ok - so the song verses we just sang said that Jesus is the one who breaks the bread and pours the cup - and now the next underlined verses above say that he meets us here - but we can’t see him. Huh?
I don’t understand how to make sense of these two ideas both happening at the same time. Does he break the bread himself - OR - does he meet us when other people break it? It can’t be both.
I found out that the idea of “meeting us tho’ unseen” is also linked to the Emmaus situation. This is what I found written by catholic father Tommy Lane:
“On Easter Sunday evening on the road to Emmaus, as soon as the two disciples leaving Jerusalem recognized Jesus at the breaking of the bread, Luke tells us Jesus vanished from their eyes (Luke 24:31). Luke does not say that Jesus went away or departed. What Luke really says in his Greek is that Jesus became invisible to the two disciples. In other words, Jesus was with them, but they could no longer see him. That is the way it is with us also. Jesus is with us, though we cannot see him, except when we see him in the Eucharist.”
It’s very easy to say that something means something else when you look at it in Greek. So I looked it up myself. While it does indeed say that he became unseen - there are different translations of the word, some versions do say he became invisible, most of them say he disappeared - but it is another thing to say that he stayed there in that room in Emmaus - invisible - and that somehow translates to the event of our taking the bread and the cup.
“So they [the 2 men in Emmaus] rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, saying, “The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” And they told about the things that had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of bread. Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence.” Luke 24:33-43
Now, I have to ask, IF Jesus was still in that room in Emmaus after breaking the bread - but became invisible, then:
Why did the 2 disciples leave? Why would they abandon Jesus if they knew he was there?
Why didn’t they say to the other disciples that they had found him and he was in Emmaus, in a room, but not visible?
Why didn’t Jesus scold the 2 men in Emmaus for abandoning him when he appeared to them all together back in Jerusalem?
So the basic idea here is that the eyes of the two men in Emmaus were opened whenever they ate the bread - and that Jesus is now revealed to us when we eat the bread and drink the cup in remembrance of him. But is that true?
It seems to me to be a pretty big leap, theologically, though. Jesus kept the men from recognizing him for a reason, and we have no scriptural indication that Jesus keeps us from recognizing him - OR - that we do physically “recognize” him once we eat the bread. Here are some questions I have about that idea:
Once we’ve taken the bread once, does that mean that our eyes would be opened from then on?
Or, once opened, does it mean that in the time (or however long it is) between eating the bread with our brothers and sisters in Christ - that our eyes or minds are dimmed and can’t see him?
It’s not indicated that Jesus took the cup with the men in Emmaus. Does he meet us when we break the bread and then leave when we take the cup?
(These questions may sound silly, but I’m just nudging out all the possibilities to try to understand what these words are referring to.)
To sing the words that “he meets us here, although he is invisible”, teaches something that the Scriptures never teach. If it were true that Jesus was present - but invisible - every time people took the bread and the cup, that would be something very important. Don’t you think Matthew, Mark, Luke or Paul would have pointed that out in their instructions and explanations? Did Jesus forget to tell them, or is this another idea about the bread and cup that is unscriptural?
Let us look at another time the resurrected Jesus ate bread with his disciples. The 3rd time that Jesus appeared to his disciples in John chapter 21 also involved eating of bread. (The word for bread here is not special, it is the same Greek word “ἄρτον” pronounced “arton” used 38 other times in the New Testament, and is the most common usage of the word for bread, used in Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22 and Luke 22:19 as the word for the bread Jesus broke in the Passover meal with his disciples, the bread broken with the men in Emmaus in Luke 24:30, and for bread in general, (give us today our daily (arton) bread - Matthew 6:11) and as used below:
John 21:1-15 “After these things Jesus showed Himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias... Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.” They said to him, “We are going with you also.” They went out and immediately got into the boat, and that night they caught nothing.
But when the morning had come, Jesus stood on the shore; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. Then Jesus said to them, “Children, have you any food?” They answered Him, “No.” And He said to them, “Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some.”
So they cast, and now they were not able to draw it in because of the multitude of fish….Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, “It is the Lord,” he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards.[ Then, as soon as they had come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid on it, and bread (arton). Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish which you have just caught.” Simon Peter went up and dragged the net to land, full of large fish, one hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not broken. Jesus said to them, “Come and eat.” Yet none of the disciples dared ask Him, “Who are You?”—knowing that it was the Lord. Jesus then came and took the bread (arton) and gave it to them, and likewise the fish. This is now the third time Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after He was raised from the dead. So when they had eaten…"
In this, the 3rd time Jesus appears to his disciples, here are some things that stick out to me:
The disciples did not physically recognize Jesus at first
They knew it was Jesus after the miracle he did - despite not recognizing him physically.
Jesus broke bread and gave it to them - just like he did with the men in Emmaus - but this was not what caused them to know it was him.
There is no indication of a change in His physical appearance or their physical recognition of him during - or after - he broke bread or when they ate bread, as it was the miracle, not the eating of bread that caused them to know who He was.
My conclusion is this: IF - in fact, eating bread with Jesus meant that Jesus was always physically revealed to the one eating bread, then the rest of the chapter would have mentioned that their eyes were opened and Jesus was revealed to them after they ate the bread - but it never says that. They knew it was him in spite of not recognizing him physically BEFORE he broke bread or they at it. So then, I think we can conclude that the teaching that ‘the eating of bread (eucharist) is how Jesus is physically revealed to us’ - is a teaching of men, but not a teaching from the Scriptures.
Please leave me your thoughts and comments below. Thank you for reading!
Comments