Thinking typologically, Jesus asks to eat in 24:41. They give him fish. Fish is Gentiles in the NT. The fish eats Jonah, the Jewish missionary. Jonah did not bring good news to Gentiles when first called. Jesus eats the fish. Jesus is the new missionary who obeys the Father when he first calls. Jesus eats fish so that his disciples may be fishers of men.
If He did also eat some ‘Promised Land’ honeycomb, He united Gentile and Jew in His body.
Fair enough, Mike. I am just still skeptical about “honeycomb” being part of the original text. As you know the word is not found in early manuscripts. What are your thoughts?
Uri
I don’t know enough about the early texts to judge. I do know that these earlys often don’t even agree among themselves.
I recently traced the Creation/Covenant pattern through the Bible – and I found it in the Lord’s prayer. But it needed the last kingdom/power/glory bit to fill the pattern, which is now often relegated to footnote status.
You can see the Intro to my book at:
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/pdf_lastdays/TOTUSCHRISTUS-Intro+Ch1.pdf
Email me your address and I’ll post you a review copy mbull at bullartistry . com . au (No pressure to read it once you see it but I’d love your thoughts)
God bless,
Mike
Hey Mike, I read the first few pages. Seems promising. Jim Jordan is our pianist here at Providence Church where I pastor. My friend Keith Mathison did something similar in his newest Biblical Theological opus, but it does not give any credit to typology and Jordan and Leithart’s hermeneutic. Yours seem a breath of fresh air. Carry on the good work, brother.
My e-mail is: uriesou@gmail.com