Lucas 24:30,31

And—as he sat at meat, &c.— The 31st verse shews that the impediment,orsupernaturalinfluence,whichhinderedtheirknowinghimbefore,was now removed. Yet granting that no supernatural impediment was then existing, our Saviour's very action of breaking bread, which was the office of the master of the family, plainly implied that he was no stranger, but their Master, though theydid not know him. Be this as it may, he had duly prepared them to receive the testimony of their senses, and now discovered himself, and that by an act of devotion in breaking bread, which among the Jews was always attended with thanks to God, the giver of our daily bread. But there seems to have been something still more peculiar in this action, on which account it was introduced by St. Luke in his narration of this history, and by the two disciples themselves when they related to the apostles at Jerusalem what had happened to them at Emmaus, Lucas 24:35.

Undoubtedly the manner of breaking the bread, and probably the form of the words in the thanksgiving, were peculiar to our Saviour: probably, they were the same with those made use of by him in the Lord's supper; at least these two actions are described by St. Luke in the same words. If so, how strongly were the disciples called upon by this action to remember their Lord, who had instituted that form, as a memorial of his own death! and how properly did he accompany that discovery of himself, which he now thought fit to make to them! We are told after this, that he vanished out of their sight: the word vanished leads the mind to think of the person vanishing as a mere spectre. The original words literally signify, "becoming invisible to, or withdrawing himself from them." In the margin of our Bibles they are well rendered, He ceased to be seen of them. If this passage be thought to be inconsistent with the reality of Christ's body, it may reasonably be asked, whether there is no way for a real body to disappear? If in the night-time we put out the candles, we shall all disappear; if a man fall asleep in the day-time, all things disappear to him, his senses are locked up; and yet all things about continue to be real, and his senses continue perfect; as shutting out all rays of light from anyparticular body, would make that body disappear.

Perhaps something like this was the case; or perhaps something else, of which we know nothing: but be it what it will, it does not follow that a body is not real, because we lose sight of it suddenly. This passage does not therefore infer, that the body of Christ was no real body; if it did, it would prove likewise, that Christ had no real body before his death; for we read, that when the multitude would have thrown him down a precipice, he went through the midst of them unseen. Now nothing happened after his resurrection more unaccountable than this, which had happened before it; and if the argument be good at all to prove that Christ had no real body, it will be good to prove that there never was such a man as Jesus Christ in the world. Perhaps the adversaries of Christianity may think this a little too much to prove; but if they do, it is to be hoped they will quit the argument in one case, as well as in the other; for difference there is none. Nevertheless, I know not but the immortal resurrection-body of our Lord might have been endued with such properties, unknown to us in this mortal state, as to be able to vanish out of the disciples' sight, in such a manner as to be absolutely imperceptible to mortal eyes: nor do I think that there is the least improbability in this supposition.