Yes exactly, Andrew, “Luke gave us the structure of a living interpretive presence.” I think what James is telling us is that, Luke portrays Jesus, the definitive interpreter, as an outsider who must first induce the “insiders” to stop squabbling with each other and instead to begin to try and tell their story. It is through their failed telling that they are going to be given the possibility of a new story.
The interpretation offered to the disciples allows them to see how what was really going on had to be that way and makes perfect sense as part of a deliberate project or trajectory.
What Luke wants to show us is the shape and incidence among us of the living interpretative presence in the light of which all texts become secondary.
As the disciples heard Jesus interpret all the scriptures, they knew they were hearing the truth about themselves and their history. They were being re?narrated into being.
Luke portrays this appearance of Jesus as a Yahwistic theophany, an appearance of YHWH. The disciples come to realize that it hadn’t been a “he” who was talking to them, but “I AM”, the driving force all that had happened, as well as the source of who they are and what they are becoming. He also gives a liturgical answer to the question: through whose eyes do we read scripture? We read eucharistically, through the eyes of one who is present among us and who causes us to undergo a complete change of belonging to our world, including us in a story which is his story, one where he is the protagonist.

And no, as you say, the Son of God does not dominate or force-feed a position.