(04/18/13)

There is precisely one thing we might say about Cleopas with any confidence, and that is that he was one of the two there on the Emmaus road talking to Jesus. That’s it. What we have from Luke is the sum of knowledge as concerns this man. Anything beyond this must necessarily become speculative.

So, allow me a very brief speculation, for which I will offer the excuse that there must be a reason why Luke would give us his name and only his name. We are not told who the other disciple was, and isn’t he at least as deserving of mention? There is one possible explanation that offers itself. There are doubtless others, but there is one which has my attention this morning. Some of the encyclopedias make note of theories that this Cleopas was yet another name for Clopas who was also known as Alphaeus (whose son was numbered amongst the Apostles). But, one strong argument against this lies in the names themselves. Both Clopas and Alphaeus, it is noted are Aramaic names. Cleopas, on the other hand, is Greek, short for Cleopater or Cleopatros.

I would note that our author, Luke, is likewise Greek and that his immediate audience is likewise Greek. We might wonder, I suppose, what a Greek is doing amongst the disciples at this stage. However, there is that encounter at the temple, when certain God-fearing Greeks were seeking to have audience with Jesus. It would not, then, be utterly improbable that Jesus had some followers from amongst their number, particularly after His actions in clearing the market out of the Court of the Gentiles.

I will then mention the derivation of that name, Cleopas. It’s meaning is given as ‘of a renowned father’. All of this: the suggestion of being Greek, the suggestion of a father known to many, at least in his own locale, the intention of this letter being to provide an account of ‘the exact truth’ for Theophilus (Lk 1:3-4), leads me to suppose that Cleopas was somebody known to Theophilus. He is yet another witness brought into the account who can vouch for the validity of what is recorded. He was there, and he is with you. You can ask him if this isn’t just exactly what happened! You know him, his character. You know he is trustworthy. Perhaps they even know him because he still can’t stop telling one and all about this most amazing news.

As I say, it must all remain speculation. But, the very fact that the Holy Spirit saw fit to preserve his name in the record, and that Luke was inclined to take note of who it was that had spoken with the risen Christ, gives me reason to think I may not be far off in my surmise. Whoever that other disciple was, it was apparently not one of the Apostles, for they returned to find the eleven together. It was also apparently not anybody known to Theophilus, and so his name had no bearing on the Gospel account Luke was composing.

I am mindful of this: All of the Gospels tend towards focusing as exclusively as possible upon the person of Jesus. There are plenty of others introduced by name, it is true, but primarily because it aids in our understanding events related to the focal point, Jesus. There are many others whose tales are told, but who remain nameless. In many cases, we can attribute that failure to name the participants as a matter of protection. The events were hardly to their credit, or knowledge of who they were might be a threat to their life or livelihood. Thus, the centurion at the cross is not named. Only his rank is noted, and that hint that he has become a Christian, that he has offered this same testimony live and in person. It’s possible, certainly, that this applied to the one with Cleopas.

In other cases, it has been a form of modesty for the author to name himself. John is particularly prone to this, and to a lesser degree, we see the same from Peter as Mark provides his account. But, Luke shows no such propensity. There is, for example, that section in Acts where he is clearly present in the events he records. No lack of ‘we’ in that account. Had he been on the road with Cleopas, I think we would know it.

There are many other cases, though, where the name is not mentioned simply because it does not have any bearing on the record. The person is either passed away and unavailable for comment, or so unknown as to be equally unavailable. Assigning a name to them does not provide for further witness to the Truth, nor is it of any import in clarifying the narrative. To name names on such an occasion would only distract the reader from his proper focus on Jesus.

This, by the way, leads me to propose a somewhat expanded theory, that where we are given names in the Gospels, we can suspect that those named were either alive and available to corroborate the evidence at the time the Gospels were written, or were sufficiently well known in their own right that their evidence would already be quite familiar to those who received the Gospels. This is something, I would note, that we might also bear in mind when reading the Epistles. Those who were greeted and who offered greetings were known one to another, if not to us. All in all, the texts we have in Scripture, though intended for the ages, are very personal. They are evidence of that very fellowship to which we are enjoined in Hebrews. Forsake not the gathering together, you known not just who you may fit into the picture of God’s purpose. You know not just whose lives you may impact. You don’t always know the good you do.

It’s odd, isn’t it, that we always tend to be aware of the evil we do, but the good we’re never quite so sure about. I wonder if Cleopas and some of these others we’ve met suffered the same perspective.