Resurrection and Mission

Robert C. Tannehill points out that the resurrection narrative in Luke 24 has a generally chiastic structure. First, there is an inclusio with the idea of “return” (23:56; 24:52), and the emphasis on the fact that Jesus’ disciples are observant Jews (23:56b; 24:53). Second, within that, there is a chiastic structure:

A. Angels announce that Jesus is risen
B. Jesus instructs the two disciples on the road to Emmaeus
C. Jesus breaks bread with the two disciples
D. The disciples return to Jerusalem and announce that Jesus is risen
C’. Jesus eats a meal with the 11
B’. Jesus instructs the 11
A’. Jesus departs from the 11

This is a classic case of what John Breck calls a rhetorical helix. The chiasm is not so much a “balanced” structure, as a dynamic one, with an important turning point at the center. Note especially the DIFFERENCE between Jesus’ instruction to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus and His teaching of the 11: The first time, He explains that the OT teaches about Christ’s suffering and glory; the second period of instruction has added a key feature: “repentance for release of sins should be procalimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” These two additional points (mission to the nations; Jerusalem’s centrality) are the key themes of the central D section of the passage: The two disciples return to Jerusalem, and they become witnesses of the things they have seen (cf. v 48). The text moves from B to B’ by collecting the thematic content of the D section.

Practically, of course, the point of the structure is to highlight the mission that the disciples are being given. Through an encounter with the Risen Jesus in Word and Meal, the two disciples go back to the base of operations in Jerusalem and are transformed into witnesses.