Naked Bible Podcast 328 — Jesus and the Honeycomb

You're listening to the Naked Bible podcast. To support this podcast, go to nakedbiblepodcast.com and click on the support link in the upper right-hand corner. If you're new to the podcast and Dr. Heiser's approach to the Bible, click on new start here at nakedbiblepodcast.com. Welcome to the Naked Bible podcast episode 328, Jesus and the honeycomb. I'm the layman, Trey Strickland, and he's the scholar, Dr. Michael Heiser. Hey Mike, how you doing? Pretty good. Pretty good. It's getting hotter here, Trey. It is? And somebody told me this week that I haven't seen anything yet. That that right now it's unusually cool. Oh, yeah. Oh, so are you wearing shorts yet? Oh, yeah. Yeah, I've worn shorts a few times. It's like you know, if I'm in the house, then I'll be wearing air conditioning is on all the time, so I'll wear jeans, but if I go out, yeah. We got to get you in the flip-flops. You got any You got a good pair of flip-flops? No, I Those are Those are so annoying, man. You got to get some sandals on those on those feet, Mike. Yeah, well, uh the feet don't need it. Everything else pretty much does, but They opened the They opened the gyms, too, you know, so I I actually got to the gym this week, which was nice. That's good. Yeah. But yeah, about a dozen people in there, so they're people creeping back. Yeah, that's good. Throwing off the fear. Are you Have you made it to the beach? You Personally, I know Drina has, but have you? Yeah. No, I I I haven't and I I don't know if that'll ever happen. I I hate the beach. Is it the same I'll go if she wants to I mean, what what kind No, yeah, I just don't like sand and everything, you know, I just like, man. You don't like taking your shoes off or the water? Fit you know, and your feet and sand in your toes. Just none of that, huh? No, but that's That's what I hate cuz it's like it takes you the rest of the day to get it out. What? It takes 5 seconds with the water hose that they have there. No, no, it doesn't. Oh my gosh. Well, you must have some some weird feet or you'll get it in your shoes, you know, walking out there and then you think, you know, you've Well, you take your shoes off before you walk out there. I Well, not on the rest of the beach, you know. That's why you get sandals. That's why you get flip-flops. That's why we got to get you a pair. That's why you get sandals. That's why you get flip-flops. That's why we got to get you a pair. That's why you get sandals. That's why you get flip-flops. That's why we got to get you a pair. That's why you get sandals. That's why you get flip-flops. Well, that's That's what That's the purpose they serve. It's like the I used to have a pair of Crocs, you know, they always felt like they were going to fall off my feet. Oh, I love Crocs. I hate those. I love Crocs. You know, I just You know. Love it. It's just a it's a it's an irritation. It's a point of irritation, but you know, I I might get to the beach like once in 20 years, you know, anyway, so And no point buying And the dogs and the dogs, how they adjusted to Florida? They like the weather and humidity? Mori loves the sun. He likes to lay out in the sun, but we have to keep an eye on him because he'll just he'll just lay out there and take a nap and then I'm we're kind of afraid he's just going to bake him. You know. So, we we bring him in, but he likes it. And the other dogs, too, but but Mori especially likes it. Well, good. Now, hopefully They love the lizards. You know, the lizards are the thing. Yeah. Cuz the old the old retriever, this is keeping him young, I think. He'll go out and he he just walks the perimeter, the whole property, looking for lizards. You know, cuz they'll cling to the sides of the fence, you know. He'll never get one. Yeah. But, you know, he likes to chase them. And how are you doing with no baseball this summer? Yeah, that kind of stinks, really. You know, they just keep playing the same games all over again and I don't know. These And then meaningless games, too. You know, who cares what opening happened on opening day 6 years ago? Like, what whatever. So, that that's been a bit of a struggle cuz I'm used to listening to games while I work and stuff like that. There's just nothing nothing going on. So, we we did do our fantasy draft for the the Naked Bible League. So, if we if if there is a season, we'll at least get to do that and and listen. Did you The Jaguars schedule came out. Yeah. So, every We're all We're planning on going to a a Jaguars game. Not not during the summer. Not going to sit out there in 100° and 100% humidity. Maybe in the fall, but that's about it. Well, that's good. Yeah, you got to go to a Jags game. Uh and uh Darren sent me an email uh a few days ago and he ended it you know, of course he's got a question and whatnot, but he ended it, you know, by the way, the sports talk is fine. Makes y'all less nerdish. So, little shout-out to Darren for letting us know we sound a little less nerdish when we talk sports, so makes us manly, Mike. Yeah, makes us manly, I guess. Yeah. Great. Yeah. I think the the hair on my chest just got a little longer listening to that. Okay, wow. All right, well, let's transition here. We're we're talking about Jesus we should Well, well, well, well, here's my transition. Uh Jesus and the honeycomb. I I assume you're talking about Jesus is going to come back and save the bees. No. No? No? No. No, you you missed that one. I thought this was about beekeepers here. You You swung at something out of the strike zone there, Trey, but that's not what it's going to be about. Oh, my bad. Well, you know, you know, since obviously obviously, if if you don't know what this is about, you know, there's going to be a somebody else in the audience that does, too. So, that makes the episode all worthwhile. Uh but, you know, honestly, this is a little bit of an arcane, you know, kind of episode because this is really off the beaten path, but it again, if it's weird, it's important. And And this this actually does have some importance, but it it there's a sort of a controversy out of the gate because you're not going to find the reference to the honeycomb in a lot of your translations. There's There's a a New Testament textual issue here as well. But, let's just jump into it. This is going to be Luke 24. And of course, verse 42 is the the verse that we'll end up focusing on. But, I'm going to read uh verses 36 through 43 just so that you get the scene uh in your head. So, this is after the resurrection. And it says, "As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, 'Peace to you.'" But, they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. See, that's an important line. They thought they saw a spirit. They're going to find out otherwise. And he said to them, "Why are you troubled? And why do you doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." And when he had said these things, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?" And they gave him a piece of broiled fish. And he took it and ate before them. Now, that's the ESV. That has no reference to the honeycomb. Other translations will say this. I'll read verse 42 again. They gave him a piece of broiled fish and some honeycomb. And then verse 43, he took it and ate before them. Now, the fact that you can look in your English translation and some of them will have a reference to the honeycomb, others will not. Again, I read the ESV, which does not, but it you know, it has a footnote here about the other the other phrase. That tells us right away that we have a a a Greek New Testament transmission issue. Again, a textual issue. The phrase, you know, and some honeycomb is in fact missing in papyri, which are very old, and the major uncial manuscripts, which of course are old as well. Now, for those who don't know what papyri and uncial are, uh manuscripts of the Greek New Testament are grouped by the material on which they are written. And also by the the the the the letter styles, okay? In this case, papyri is stuff that's written on papyri, and that's the oldest material of the Greek New Testament we have. Uncials were written on animal skin. Vellum is usually the term that you'll see. And they were written in all capital letters. And those are called uncials, so the fact that you have manuscripts written on animal skin with all capital letters, and of course, the words aren't separated. It's just continuous lines. These manuscripts have been called uncials for that reason, the the letter styling. And this is what they're written on. Those are are older. Uh the major uncials are are typically fourth, fifth, sixth century AD. And you know, the major uncials are are are, you know, codexes as well. Look, the codex is again the the forerunner, the immediate you know, you mean, you could call it a book, but the the technical technically correct term is a codex. Somebody actually had to have the the brilliant idea to stop using rolled manuscripts and cut pieces and then stack them and then bind them on one side, okay? That was That was like an invention that changed, you know, the course of history really because it you know, of what it did for you know, copying and printing and storage, you know, of of manuscripts. So, the major uncials these codexes are Sinaiticus is one that's familiar, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Beza. And all of them do not have the phrase "and some honeycomb." And these are these are the major uncials. So, it's not in the papyri. It's not in the major uncials of Joseph Fitzmyer, Father Fitzmyer, who has did the Anchor Bible Commentary on Luke writes, "A few manuscripts, again, add some honeycomb, but they are not significant enough to be considered seriously. So, that most of them are later." So, Fitzmyer's like, "Ah, you know, I'm not going to bother. You know, it's just we don't have good manuscript data for this." Darrell Bock's commentary at Luke 24:42 omits any reference to the honeycomb or the textual issue. It's like it's just he doesn't say anything about it. Metzger's textual commentary, which is a commentary on the uh the United Bible Society Greek New Testament. I can't remember what year this was published. Uh but he writes this. He says, "The words kai apo melissou kerion and from a honeycomb in many of the later manuscripts, which was followed by the Textus Receptus." Now, this is the the text that became the base for the King James or at least it's the most familiar term for the the textual base in the New Testament for the King James um has this reading. So, the KJV will will add "and some honeycomb." He says, "In Metzger says, many of the later manuscripts followed by the Textus Receptus are an obvious interpolation. It's an addition for it is not likely they would have fallen out of so many of the best representatives of the earlier text types. Since in parts of the ancient church, honey was used in the celebration of the Eucharist and in the baptismal liturgy, copyists may have added the reference here in order to provide scriptural sanction for the liturgical practice." That's what Metzger that's his opinion. I mean, he doesn't we're going to find out that he doesn't actually have any proof of that, but that that's just a conjecture he puts in his textual commentary for this textual issue. So, in terms of manuscripts, the textual validity for the reading is not good. But from this point forward, I'm going to be interacting with a few journal articles that look at things in a different way. And the first one here I want to reference and this one is going to be in the protected folder for those who subscribe to the McLaugh newsletter. It's by Kevin Sullivan and it's called Jesus, Angels, and the Honeycomb in Luke 24:42. This is a chapter out of the book The Open Mind: Essays in Honor of Christopher Rowland. And this was published in 2015 by Bloomsbury. It's part of the Library of New Testament Studies. This is volume 522. So, Sullivan has a note on the textual argument and his note references the Alands. There are there are two New Testament textual critics, Kurt and Barbara Aland. Uh they're a couple. And they have they wrote a very widely used famous introduction to New Testament textual criticism. So, Sullivan's going to allude to what they write and again, basically the same verdict as Metzger. So, Sullivan this is you know, from his his article, he says, "Aland and Aland state that {quote} this insertion is significant as an allusion to early popular customs of eating and liturgical use. But in view of the opposing witnesses, these are the the opposing witnesses are the ones that don't have it. So, we have papyrus number 75 and then the you know, the list of uncials in in in view of the opposing witnesses and so forth, it could not have been part of the original Lukan text. In their strong statement against the originality of the phrase, they make reference that is the Alands make reference to two previous attempts, eating customs and liturgical that have been put forward to explain the existence of this insertion." So, Sullivan, you know, says, "Hey, you know, textually speaking, you know, that this has problems." But then he references Metzger's comment as well about the the baptismal liturgy and the Eucharist speculation. Says, "Yep, you know, Metzger doesn't think it's there either or it's original or or he thinks it's it's pretty late." And so then Sullivan, you know, commenting on what Metzger's, you know, not his theory, but his speculation that it was added to sort of justify a liturgical practice associated with the Eucharist, Sullivan writes this. "This is certainly a possibility, but it is not clear that this would be an appropriate place for an insertion that was meant to give scriptural basis to a practice for something as significant as the Eucharist and baptism. Moreover, if it was, then why did it not make it into many versions of Luke? Why do we not see honey mentioned in any of the other gospels at important moments? The importance of the Eucharist in Christian practice makes it unlikely that such a small number of manuscripts and such an oblique passage like Luke 24 and he says, "There is no such variant in John 21:13." See, this is the other place where Jesus, you know, is is there on the on the by the shore and you know, the fish are there. You have there there's a there's a meal being made. There's no insertion there of honeycomb reference, okay?" So, Sullivan's saying, "It's unlikely that such a small number of manuscripts and such an oblique passage as this one and that the fact that there's no variant in John 23, it's unlikely that this demonstrates intent to connect the honeycomb to Eucharistic practice. So, while this is a possible explanation, it again does not seem particularly convincing." So, he isn't buying Metzger's explanation. And he proceeds in the article to show that the suggestion of Metzger to explain the addition actually lacks coherence in other regards. So, for instance, in in a footnote uh Sullivan quotes a a work by A. McGowan and the title of of that book, it's a 1999 Oxford University Press work, is Ascetic Eucharists: Food and Drink in Early Christian Ritual Meals. He And the footnote says, "McGowan notes that honey was taken with milk in ritual meals and that there is {quote} no convincing evidence for milk and honey baptismal meals in the first or second centuries." So, McGowan, I mean, who wrote a whole book on the food and drink they used to use at ritual meals and baptism and the Lord's Supper, says, "Hey, you know, when it comes to baptism, you got nothing for two centuries." So, you know, again, Sullivan's point is that really doesn't sound congruent, you know, with Metzger's idea. Uh Sullivan references another article. This is by Kilpatrick and I I believe this one is also in the protected folder cuz we're going to reference this a few times. This one's just simply titled Luke 24:42 and 43. It's from the scholarly journal Novum Testamentum, volume 28, number four. This was written in 1986. And it's only three pages long. So, it's just a short article on on these verses. Kilpatrick notes two other passages. Now, this is important again cuz the textual thing here is the argument is that look, the the passage isn't in these early texts. The papyri and the uncials. Now, but Kilpatrick notes something really important here. He notes that two other passages in the same chapter in Luke 24 have demonstrable eye skips and points out that the omission of the phrase in two other places can be explained that way by the scribes their eye skipping from one part of a word like three letters that you know, they're looking at and then they you know, they look at the text they're copying and they're they're looking at the word and they they they their attention turns to the thing they're writing out by hand and they write down the word and then they look back at the text they're copying, but somehow their eye falls on the same three letters a few words down the line and they don't realize it. And then they start copying the the next word associated right next to those three letters and then they that gets put in the text and the result is the stuff in the middle from the the first three letters, you know, I'm just this is a hypothetical example. The first three letters and then the second three letters that are the same, the stuff in the middle gets omitted. It gets skipped. It's a scribal mistake. It's an eye skip problem. There you know, there's fancy terms for this in textual criticism. Homo ar- I always get this mixed up. Homoioarcton and Homoioeuteluton. The first one is a scribal area er- error leading to omission of elements of the text that's based on similar beginnings of words and the other one is the same thing based on similar endings of words. So, it's just a the scribe looks at something, starts writing turns his attention back to what he was looking at and his eye falls on the same letters, but he doesn't realize it's not the same place in the manuscript. And then never never figures it out, never sees it, goes back to to copying the manuscript and we have the omission of material. This is how it happens. It's a very human mistake. And so Kilpatrick's saying, "Look, there are two places in Luke 24 where we have a textual issue where something is missing in certain manuscripts and the the omission is explainable by an eye skip." And then he then he makes his his point. Here's why he's he's drawing attention to this. He says, "You can explain the omission in Luke 24:42 of the phrase and some honeycomb exactly the same way. And he points out in his article that on either side, you know, of of what would have been the running text, you have identical letters of of the stuff that's not there. So, Kilpatrick's argument is, "Look, why is it the textual critics can recognize in these other two places in the same chapter that we have a mechanical error here. We have a an accidental scribal error. And this is why this text is missing in certain manuscripts, even even old ones. You got two places where this is apparent in the chapter, but then when it comes to verse 42 that that nobody is making the same argument." And so, what Kilpatrick is suggesting is, "Look, this this could be really old. You know, the phrase and some honeycomb could be just as old as the material in the papyri and in the these these uncials, but it just got dropped out. It You know, it it was just missed. And then some scribe later on had a manuscript with it in. You know, and then it shows up in later manuscripts. So, Kilpatrick actually isn't buying the textual the the text critical assessment that this can't be very early. And again, it's it's a very good argument because the exact same phenomena phenomenon that could explain this omission is actually at work in two other places in the same chapter when it comes to the the set of manuscripts. So, you know, Solomon goes moves on from that and he shows how very early church fathers, when they quote the New Testament or they talk about um the scene in Luke 24, they know about the honeycomb. So, they're getting it from somewhere. Justin Martyr references it. Clement of Alexandria references it. So does Tertullian. So, Solomon notes that even if it's not original to to Luke, let let's just say let's just say it wasn't there and it could have been added, you know, like like like the other textual critics say it was added really early. So, it's either original to Luke or it was added really really early. And again, there's there's no there's no Eucharistic thing here because you know, McGowen's work has shown that there's nothing there's no use of honey in baptismal, you know, formulas for for two centuries. So, so what what Solomon's doing here is he's making the case that, you know, even though we have a textual problem here and it's not in the major manuscripts, it's still quite conceivable that it was in manuscripts that we just don't have now, very very early. Because again, the the first generation of early patristic fathers, they know it. They know it. And you know, we have a good mechanical explanation for how it could have fallen out of the text. So, I wanted to to say a little bit about that because we're going to have people in the audience that are going to going to like the text critical discussion, they're going to be aware of it here. Just so that you know, that is far from a done deal. Okay, the the the assessment of the Alands and Metzger, that does not end the discussion by any means. So, for the sake of the rest of the episode, we're going to proceed as though the honeycomb reference is, you know, authentic. But we're just going to assume that and and then ask the the obvious question like, "What's the point? Why is it here? What does it mean? Why why mention it? Is it only there for the same reason the fish is there? You know, that okay, Jesus eats something and that he has to be there in physical form. Now, that's part of it, for sure, because he's he's doing the physical act of eating. But I think you're going to you're going to be surprised that there there are some other things that this communicates uh that that really actually relate to uh high Christology. And and I'm going to I'm going to use the term that I've used a couple of times in the podcast, angelomorphic Christology. Uh it's going to it's going to actually take us back to the two powers, the two Yahwehs thing. The angel of the Lord in the Old Testament being God in in invisible human form and in some cases, you know, physical. Okay, it's going to take us back to that. And so, there's this notion in in in a couple of New Testament passages where Jesus, you know, the the resurrected Jesus is linked to the angel of the of the Lord. That makes sense in the post-resurrection, doesn't it? It wouldn't really make sense pre-resurrection, obviously, because Jesus is a human, he's incarnate. He's running around, you know, preaching and doing things like that. But after the resurrection, you get a a couple of passages that actually link Jesus with this particular angel figure. And as as odd as it sounds, the honeycomb thing is part of that linkage. Again, this is a post-resurrection scene. So, assuming that it is, you know, part of Luke's, you know, original text, again, we don't know that but just assuming that it is, it would make sense and it communicates certain things. So, that's what I want to devote the rest of the episode uh to just sort of unraveling this. Now, in in the orbit of biblical studies and biblical scholars, there are a couple of clear points of reference that Luke could have had in mind with the reference. In other words, if we if we start with the question, "Well, why would Luke include this detail?" There there are a couple of of very discernible, very comprehensible reference points that Luke, again, he's a physician, so he's educated. He's quite literate. Anyone who has studied Greek or has mucked around in in Greek, you know, commentaries knows that Luke's Greek is pretty much superior to everything else in the New Testament. It's it's much more complicated. He's His writing is elevated. It's It's like reading, you know, something by Shakespeare and then somebody who's not Shakespeare. You know, it's this this kind of thing. It's It's an It's an elevated kind of Greek that approximates more closely, you know, classical Greek than the other stuff in in the Greek New Testament because the Greek New Testament was written in Koine, which is the the common vernacular in Greek. But Luke sort of surpasses that in in in in what he's doing. And Hebrews does as well, which is one of the reasons why some people have argued that Luke wrote Hebrews, but again, that's that's kind of a dead end. But back to Luke here. Given Luke's apparent education, there are a couple of obvious things that he could have had in his head that he thought it would be useful to include this detail of the seaside episode or in this case, you know, the where where the disciples have have gathered, you know, and are talking about what you know, the events that have just transpired in Jerusalem and then Jesus shows up, okay? And I'm going to start for you know, for the first one of these, I'm going to reference a book called This is a Second Temple Jewish book called Joseph and Aseneth. This is a a I want to say short, but I mean it it's it's it's got a good bit of content to it. I mean, in chapters 14 through 16 of this book, there is a very well-known episode that involves Michael and the honeycomb. Okay? So, this would have been a kind of a a clear reference. Um but let's just let's just see what's in there. So, I'm going to quote a little bit here about what this book is about. This is from Burchard's uh translation of Joseph and Aseneth in the Charlesworth the second volume of the Charlesworth Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. So, Burchard writes, "The Old Testament records that Pharaoh gave to Joseph Aseneth, the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, for his wife. This is Genesis 41:45. How could Joseph, the model of chastity, piety, and statesmanship marry a foreign Hamitic girl, daughter of an idolatrous priest? Jewish theology and lore found many answers to this intriguing question and expanded some into narratives. Joseph and Aseneth, the longest of these stories, is a full-fledged romance by an anonymous author. It is nearly twice as long as Esther and a little longer than the Gospel of Mark. So, it's it's fairly substantial. The date, uh Burchard comments, "Joseph and Aseneth presupposes at least some of the Septuagint and probably all of it. It is hard to decode this into dates, but we are probably safe to say that the book was written between 100 BC and Hadrian's edict against circumcision, which has to do with the second Jewish war of AD 132 to 135. If Joseph and Aseneth comes from Egypt, the Jewish revolt under Trajan, circa AD 115 to 117, is the latest possible date. So, in round numbers, you know, Burchard is suggesting we're probably safe to say that that Joseph and Aseneth was written somewhere between 100 BC and 100 AD. Let's just use round numbers. Now, the story itself is about Aseneth, this this woman. She becomes a follower of Yahweh, Joseph's God. And her prayer is again, this is all this is a romance. This is fictional. We don't, you know, know any any of this happened, but this is the way it's it's dealt with, it's portrayed. Her prayer is in Joseph and Aseneth chapter 13. So, she There's this long prayer where she confesses her loyalty to Yahweh and turns away from the gods of Egypt. And then she's visited by a quote heavenly man. All right? In chapters 14 through 16, who introduces himself as the chief of angels. That's chapter 14, verse 7. And that's actually in Greek Joshua 5 language. Okay? The heavenly man tells her that Yahweh accepts her and approves of the marriage to Joseph. He then gives her the the heavenly man gives Aseneth a new name. And here's I'm I'm just going to read from uh from the book now. This is Okay, this is chapter 14. And I'm going to start in verse seven. And your name shall no longer be called Aseneth, but your name shall be city of refuge. Because in you many nations will take refuge with the Lord God the most high. And under your wings many peoples trusting in the Lord God will be sheltered. And behind your walls will be guarded those who attach themselves to the most high God in the name of repentance. For repentance is in the heavens. I'll come back to the repentance in a moment. Repentance is in the heavens an exceedingly beautiful and good daughter of the most high. And she herself entreats the most high God for you at all times and for all who repent in the name of the most high God. Because he is the father of repentance and she herself is guardian of all virgins. And loves you very much and is beseeching the most high for you at all times. And for all who repent she prepared a place of rest in the heavens and she will renew all who repent and wait on them herself forever and ever. Now on repentance in in Second Temple Judaism it's common to have angels representing or presiding over human virtues. Uh this whole idea if in First Enoch 40 verse nine the angel of repentance has a name it's Phanuel. Um so that again this idea that you know, repentance is in the heavens. In this case it's it's a specific angel Phanuel and and that angel is referred to in by feminine pronouns as well. So that's that's a that's part of Jewish you know, angelology between the Testaments Jewish tradition. Now Aseneth is is thrilled when she hears this. And so she wants to offer the heavenly man a meal. And this is chapter 16 and this is where the honeycomb exchange comes in. So I'm going to read chapter 16 a a portion of it. It goes like this. Aseneth hurried and set a new table before him and he went and went to provide bread for him. And the man said to her, "Bring me also a honeycomb." And Aseneth stood still and was distressed because she didn't have a honeycomb in her storeroom. And the man said to her, "Why do you stand still?" And Aseneth said, "I will send a boy to the suburb because the field which is our inheritance is close. And he will quickly bring you a honeycomb from there and I will set it before you, Lord." And the man said to her, "Proceed and enter your storeroom and you will find a honeycomb lying upon the table. Pick it up and bring it here." And Aseneth said, "Lord, a honeycomb is not in my storeroom." It's like, "Yeah, I know what's in my kitchen, dude." And the man said, "Proceed and you will find one." And Aseneth entered her storeroom and found a honeycomb lying on the table. And the comb was big and white as snow and full of honey. And that honey was like the dew from heaven and its exhalation like breath of life. And Aseneth wondered and said in herself, "Did then this comb cannot come out of the man's mouth because it's exhalation is like the breath of this man's mouth?" And Aseneth took that comb and brought it to the man and put it on the table which she had prepared before him. And the man said to her, "How is it that you said that a honeycomb is not in my storeroom?" So now he's you know, he's needling her a little bit. "Behold, you have brought a wonderful honeycomb." And Aseneth was afraid and said, "Lord, I did not have a honeycomb in my storeroom at any time, but you spoke and it came into being. Surely this came out of your mouth because it's exhalation is like the breath of your mouth." So in other words, she's she's thinking like he breathed it into existence. And the man smiled at Aseneth's understanding and called her to himself and stretched out his right hand and grasped her hand and shook and shook her head with his right hand. And Aseneth was afraid of the man's hand because sparks shot forth from his hand as from bubbling melted iron. And Aseneth looked gazing with her eyes at the man's hand. The man saw it and smiled and said, "Happy are you, Aseneth, because the ineffable mysteries of the most high have been revealed to you. And happy are all who attach themselves to the Lord God in repentance because they will eat from this comb. For this comb is full of the spirit of life. And the bees of the paradise of delight have made this from the dew of the roses of life that are in the paradise of God." I mean you know, again this this Edenic sort of imagery. And all the angels of God eat it and all the chosen of God and all the sons of the most high. Because this is a comb of life. And everyone who eats of it will not die forever and ever. So that's again Joseph and Aseneth chapter 16. Now what other biblical scholars or what other biblical stories do you know, is is it not nearly as detailed okay as this? This is a long scene. But you mean think about it. Let's just think about it in broad terms. You know, what other biblical stories are there that have food offered to God in human form? Okay? What are they? In case you again this is BC and it very well could be. What else do we have? Well, we've got Genesis 18. Okay, that's you know, the Lord himself and then two angels. They they show up and these quote unquote three men come and visit Abraham. And they have a meal. Again we if you go to Genesis 19 the first four verses you know, it's they eat. I mean they they have the meal. You got Judges 13. Again this is the Samson story where again in in this case we don't have it we don't have the the items eaten. But uh Samson's mother brings food to the the you know, angel of God. Uh so there there's this gesture of a meal there. Later in the New Testament and by and by the way that these these kind of passages in the Old Testament are what's lurking behind Hebrews 13:2 that you entertain angels unawares. You know, you should always extend hospitality because you never know. And later in the New Testament with the post-resurrection Jesus we have the Emmaus road incident. I mean there's food involved in that. He takes the bread and as soon as he breaks it then they know who it is. John 21:13. Again the reference to again to the to the meal by the sea and then of course Luke 24:43 42:43. In verse 43 Jesus is eating the fish. And then the honeycomb would be in verse 42 again if that's the you know, the authentic reading. So I mean Luke 24:42 is not alone and Joseph of Aseneth is not alone in this idea. That you have you know, humans at least offering food to a supernatural being. Let's talk about the messaging you know, a little bit. You know, now we have Joseph and Aseneth as a little bit of a backstory. Uh we're going to get to a second reference here in a moment, but but that's the one that is the most obvious. Again and you know, chief of the angels you know, most people would say that that this is you know, this is Michael because of you know, he's he's the the highest archangel and again keeping it within a Second Temple Jewish orbit. I mean you you could just as well you know, go back to the language of Joshua five and you know, and and say well I this is this is somebody who's higher than you know, Michael. Because the captain of the Lord's host with the drawn sword in his hand. Again this is familiar to Unseen Realm readers, but the drawn sword in his hand is a key phrase. Cuz that Hebrew phrase only occurs two other places First Chronicles 21:16 and Numbers 22:23. Or is it 23:22? I think it's 23:22, but but both of them are the angel of the Lord. It says that explicitly. So if if we're going to use that and factor that in and this is indeed BC this would be like a a another one of these God as man like the like again in Christian language the second person of the Trinity showing up in this Joseph and Aseneth scene. Again we're not saying that this like happened historically back in the days of Joseph. Again this is a this is a it's a fictional romance, but there it would show you that Jews again are thinking in these terms. This is high Jewish Godhead thinking. Okay? So Joseph and Aseneth is is one of these texts that factors into that whole discussion of you know, binitarian Jewish monotheism. But in this case you know, we bring it up because of the honeycomb reference, but anyway Kilpatrick makes reference to the honeycomb in his article in Joseph and Aseneth. And he suggests that the honeycomb should be understood as the food of immortality. That's his phrase. And by virtue of its status as such it is food appropriate for the resurrected Jesus. So Kilpatrick thinks that that the honeycomb reference is is is really sort of a signifier that that that it would have been perceived as this is this is the food of the gods, okay? This is the food of of those who live in heaven because you know, if you go back to to what the the heavenly man says. I mean look at what he the angels of God eat of it. The chosen of God all the sons of the most high eat this. This is this is like their favorite food, okay? Um this is the comb of life. And so Kilpatrick says you know, that that Luke you know, could have conceivably included this detail to communicate not just that that the resurrected Jesus was in was there physically. But again to associate him with again these sort of a a a you know, he's he's a divine being. I mean it it reinforces the deity and the immortality of Jesus because the the honeycomb would have been associated with, you know, beings who obviously were not human. And, you know, who were perceived in Second Temple Judaism as, you know, living forever and all this kind of stuff. So, he thinks it reinforces uh both not only the resurrection, but also even the deity of of Jesus. Now, I think, you know, uh Sullivan writes this. Sullivan says, Kilpatrick is, you know, he thinks he's correct or substantially correct that the honeycomb from Joseph and Aseneth is significant for understanding the this reading, the variant reading of Luke 24. But, Sullivan says it's not enough to say that honey is the food of immortality as if it was widely accepted in all cultures at all times, let alone within early Christianity. So, Sullivan would like to see this this notion in other texts so that he could get a sense of that that more people thought along these lines. So, he says, you know, I'm you know, I think he's kind of right, but but without providing stronger support for such an assertion and arguing for the lines of influence between the text, he's not going to be completely persuaded. So, Sullivan, you know, again, is trying to be, you know, fair and honest with his readers, you know, like, okay, this, you know, he's he's basically right, but I'm not quite by I wish we had more is essentially what he's saying here. So, then he moves to the work of another scholar, Crispin Fletcher-Louis. And Sullivan writes this. Fletcher-Louis has a a whole book on angelology in or is it angelology or angelomorphic Christology in Luke and Acts? It's it's a it's a it's a well-known, but expensive monograph. So, he's going to go to Fletcher-Louis, and then Sullivan writes this. With regard to the originality of this phrase as suggested by Kilpatrick, Fletcher-Louis writes, quote, "However, the idea that the disciples happen to have some heavenly food on hand is not typical of the Lukan imagination. Kilpatrick's appeal to Joseph and Aseneth pays insufficient attention to the intricacies of the history of religions background. Metzger may well be right that its insertion, unsupported by good manuscript evidence, reflects later liturgically use in the church. Otherwise, it makes sense as an attempt to maintain that, in line with the Jewish background we have outlined" and again, his his his book is about this Jewish Christology, Jewish binitarian monotheism. He says, "It it's still makes sense as an attempt to maintain that, in line with the Jewish background we have outlined, the heavenly body, though still material, is nevertheless different from the earthly one." So, you know, he's basically saying, "Yeah, it supports the physicality of the resurrection, the resurrection body, but he's, you know, Fletcher-Louis is a little hesitant to, you know, go go where Kilpatrick goes with this." And Sullivan, you know, jumps back in here and he writes on his own behalf and he says, "Fletcher-Louis is correct that Kilpatrick's approach, quote, pays insufficient attention to the intricacies of the history of religions background, unquote, because Kilpatrick is suggesting a widespread belief in the idea of honey or the honeycomb as the food of immortality, but he does not give strong support for such an idea. Again, where are the other texts? However, Fletcher-Louis's last point, namely that this makes sense as an attempt to maintain that the heavenly body, though still material, is nevertheless different from the earthly one, is perhaps his most important one." The ontological status of Jesus at this particular point in Luke's narrative, in other words, the post-resurrection, but pre-ascension, is unique and worthy of further reflection. Jesus' appearance to the disciples comes at a pivotal moment when there is both the need to stress the corporality, you know, the physical nature of Jesus, so that the bodily resurrection is clearly demonstrated, but having just defeated death, there's also a need to acknowledge the fact that Jesus is much more than a mere human being. So, let me just stop there. Sullivan's point is that, look, what's going on in the scene is definitely a demonstration that Jesus' resurrection was physical, but he he wasn't raised to just be a now newly alive resurrected man. He's more than a man. I mean, he he was more than a man before, you know, as as the Son of God and, you know, the all the incarnation kind of stuff, but but what Sullivan is is saying here is that, look, when we think resurrection of Jesus, we can't just be thinking that the point of the resurrection was to bring a man back to life. This is no ordinary man. And so, what what Sullivan's going to do is he's going to he's going to angle for the inclusion of the honeycomb to make that point. He's going to associate this resurrected, quote unquote, man with the presence of God and and even more than the presence of God, but to actually be, again, God in in this other person entity. Again, falling back on on the notion of the angel of the Lord who was Yahweh, but wasn't, you know, Yahweh that that again, this is a this is a well-known discussion by now for this audience and and those who have read Unseen Realm, the two Yahwehs idea, the Godhead of of Judaism idea, you know, something that used to be part of Jewish theology until the 2nd century when it was declared a heresy for fairly obvious reasons. Um this whole notion that God could could be more than one person at one time. That's Jewish. You get it from the Hebrew Bible through four or five different trajectories and streams. The angel of Yahweh is one of them. And so, you know, Sullivan's argument is going to be that that the honeycomb is there to to put Jesus again in that conversation to link Jesus to that discussion for for, you know, for readers for for Luke's readers. So, Sullivan spends a good deal of time linking this text and others and the God as man eating idea with angelomorphic Christology. I mean, this is part of what his article does. You know, God as an angel, you know, God the angel of the Lord, think of the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament. So, God as an angel and then Jesus getting linked back to that angel. And so, Jesus as angel themes is what Sullivan is saying is going on here. Now, the reasoning is important that the post-resurrection Jesus, you know, get linked to all this. Again, it's more than just, oh, now he's a man, but in different kind of flesh. Well, okay, that yeah, but you know, readers, you know, Luke's telling his readers, you know, okay, he is that. He is bodily resurrected and he has he has celestial flesh now to steal a Pauline phrase for Luke, okay? Yeah, that that's true, but you have to recognize, readers, that what's happening here, what what, you know, what what what was going on in this scene is part of what was going on in the Old Testament where God himself would show up as a man as an angel. And and the angel linkage here, it might not be apparent at this point because now we're coming up to the second reference that that old, you know, biblical scholars would would think of when they think of God as man being offered a meal or when they would think of angel food, okay? Maybe you've already thought of it. And the honeycomb has a point to make. Really, it's because of its characterization as angel food. This is what brings us again to the second reference. And that is well, let's let's just start with Psalm 78 verses 23 through 25. This is a a reference to the to the wilderness wanderings. Yet, he God commanded the skies above and opened the doors of heaven, and he rained down on them manna to eat and gave them the grain of heaven. Man ate of the bread or food lechem of the angels, and he sent them food in abundance. Now, you say, well, okay, manna is angels food there, I get it, but where's the honey? Ah, for that you need to go back to the manna incident in Exodus 16 in verse 31. Okay? Let's just go back there. I'll I'll turn real quickly to Exodus 16 because there's where you get the specific link. Exodus 16:31. Again, this is the the manna chapter. Now, the house of Israel called its name, the stuff that's, you know, on the ground, okay? Like, like, what is it? Manna. What is it? The house of Israel called its name manna or manah. It was like coriander seed, white, and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey. Sounds an awful lot like the Joseph and Aseneth, uh reference. And again, you know, this is why when scholars look to when Joseph and Aseneth might have been written, the the language there's going to be borrowed from the Septuagint, you know, not only in that in that place, but other places in in that book. But, there you go. Exodus 16:31. The manna was like honey. Okay, it tasted like honey. So, Sullivan goes on from this point to reference another article on this point. And this article really is kind of odd because it actually doesn't include Joseph and Aseneth in it, which is kind of shocking given the title of the article. The article is by D. Goodman called Do Angels eat? It's from the Journal of Jewish Studies volume 37, 1986. Goodman, you know, goes through a lot of these other passages, but again, somehow he misses or or doesn't include Joseph and Aseneth, but he he does have some a few things to say about Psalm 78:23-25. He writes, "Yet he commanded the skies above and opened the doors of heaven. He rained down the manna to eat. He gave them the grain of heaven. Mortals ate of the bread of angels and he sent them food in abundance." So, he quotes the verse and then he says, "Angels are also said to have food in later texts." Then he references something in Philo. "Interestingly, the manna from heaven is linked with honey in some texts, especially Exodus 16:31." But he you know then he goes on. I'm not going to read the the whole thing, but he goes on and and discusses how other Jewish texts in the Second Temple period have angels eating things, okay? So, this is something I I I only include that one little quote from Goodwin again to make the point that yeah, lots of scholars are going to think of Joseph and Asenath, but here you have a guy who who didn't even include that, but but he's he's thinking about biblical stuff. So, it's not just Mike, you know, kind of like straining at a gnat here to get to make to justify this biblical No, other you know, scholars of of the Bible and and Jewish studies you know, have looked at Psalm 78 and Exodus 6 Exodus 16 as a as a possible reference to what Luke is doing in chapter 24. Now, for some listeners here, again, I think for a lot of them you're going to know what angelomorphic christology is all about and and the two Yahwehs and Jewish Godhead. You know, if you don't you need to read up read on "Unseen Realm." Uh for those of you who do though, we're just going to proceed. Again, I I I recommend if you if it's unfamiliar, read the "Unseen Realm" at least those chapters. Again, you you and you'll find out how the God as man idea is repurposed. Uh it's there in the Old Testament, it's repurposed in the new. But, I think, you know, for the the rest of our episode, we're just going to go straight to a passage that I don't discuss in "Unseen Realm." And that is in the book of Revelation. So, the book of Revelation actually give gives us a good glimpse good example of angelomorphic christology after the resurrection. You know, we get hints of it in these passages like Luke 24 with the honeycomb, okay? That takes us that takes the reader back into the tradition of this particular angel who is God and and the wilderness wanderings cuz the angel's supposed to be leading them, right? Okay? Again, read "Unseen Realm" if that sounds goofy or unfamiliar to you. The angel of the Lord is leading them and then you you know, you get this you know, bread from heaven that tastes like honey and you get you know, God in human form, you have the a celestial God-man and again, if if you're doing things to link the the resurrected Jesus back to this matrix of ideas, that's significant. And again, that's the whole point of of what we're trying to say in this episode, that Luke is doing this. And and he does it through this honeycomb reference. Now, let let's go to a different one. And and you're going to have to pay attention to this cuz this this may surprise you a little bit. But, if you go to Revelation, let's just start in the first chapter and we're going to zero in on the Alpha and Omega language, okay? So, in Revelation 1:1 and 2, we read this. Just think about it carefully. The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Those are the first two verses. Now, let's ask ourselves some questions. The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him. So, so that it sounds like like God gave Jesus a certain revelation about what was going to happen. Okay? Cuz he wants Jesus to inform his servants, like those who follow him, about things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel. Now, wait now now wait a minute. Is the he there Jesus or God? Is is the point that God made it known, like like this is this is the method by which God through Jesus or something gave this information. Or, here here's here's the radical thought. The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants the things that must soon take place. Could it be that God gave the information to Jesus and actually sent Jesus in the form of an angel? This is post-resurrection. Could it be that Jesus Well, let's just put it let's just be a little blatant here. Could it be that the son, who had fulfilled this role as the messenger of Yahweh in the Old Testament many times, is now fulfilling it again? That the son is the angelos, the messenger. So, it's it's the same term as translated angel. To John to tell the followers of Jesus, his own followers, what's going to happen. Okay, just store that away. Store that away cuz we're going to loop back to it. We keep reading in Revelation 1 and he who is seated on the throne said, I mean, "Behold, I am making all things new. Also, he said, 'Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.' And he said to me, 'It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.' Okay, so who is seated on the throne? It's not an empty question. Let let's just go back. I'll go back to verse 3 right after verse, you know, 2. "Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy and blessed are those who hear and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near." Verse 4. "John, to the seven churches that are in Asia. Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come and from the seven spirits who are before his throne and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings on earth. To him who loves us and who has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." So, that's the first We've now read the first six verses. So, who's on Who's on the throne? Hmm. Well, is God on the throne or is it Jesus? You know, who who is it exactly? "And he who is seated on the throne said." Okay? You know, how how how are we to to sort of determine, you know, what what what's going on here? Again, there's some ambiguity there. But, let's go back to the Alpha and and Omega. And so, the one who's on the throne says, you know, whoever that is, "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, okay? Well, that's probably God then. But, you know, it's I mean, there's this there's this temptation again to think that it's, you know, maybe Jesus is God or maybe there's more than one throne or there's a co- you know, who knows? Okay? It's getting a little muddled and we're only eight verses in, you know, because verse 8 it says, "I am the Alpha and Omega." We're it's already getting muddled as to as to the which is God and which is Jesus and what who's the angel? What you know, which one is sending him? Again, it's it's a little it's a little odd. Okay? It's a little odd. So, we we have some questions here. We're we're we're probably landing on God, but again, we're not sure because if we go back to the first couple verses, it's not completely clear as to who is sending who and who is sent. Okay? You know, who You know, it could be that the son is the messenger here. We don't know yet. You know, it's just it's just a little weird, it's a little confusing. If we keep reading, we're going to hit verse 12. "Then I" John is talking, "then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me. And I turned and and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands. And in the midst of the lampstands, one like a son of man." Okay, that's familiar language from Daniel. "Clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. The hairs of his head were white like white wool like snow." Now, wait a minute. In Daniel, the one with the white hair is the Ancient of Days. It's not the son of man, but this makes him sound like they're the same. Well, that's odd. "The hairs of his head were white like white wool like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire. His feet were like burnished bronze. That that I that description actually also describes God himself in Ezekiel 1. The the the divine man on the throne in Ezekiel 1 in that vision. So, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters." It's also from Ezekiel, this this case chapter 43. "In his right hand he held seven stars and from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword. And his face was like the sun shining in full strength." "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead, but he laid his right hand on me saying, 'Fear not. I am the first and the last and the living one. I died and behold, I am alive forevermore and I have the keys of death and Hades.'" Now, this has to be Jesus. Even though he is described in terms of the Ancient of Days and the one who is seated on the throne, the cherubim throne of Ezekiel 1. By the way, heads up to Jehovah's Witnesses there. This is not just about theos vocabulary, okay? So, this is clearly Jesus here. But, like did God like disappear from the scene or was the whole point of Revelation 1 that Jesus is God? And if he is God, he's sending a messenger, but could the messenger also like how do you parse this? Where is God in the scene? Where is Jesus in the scene? And what's up with this angel? Because if God's sending the angel, then it would make sense that Jesus could be that angel because the son occupied that slot back in the Old Testament. Where God was as a man or you know, like the son of man to to steal Daniel's line. Like what's going on? What's going on here? It's it's a little hard to know who the characters are and how to divide them, how to parse them. Then we go to Revelation 22. So we're in the first chapter and now we're going to go to the last chapter. Okay, we're going to bookend it. Verse 1. Okay. Then the angel showed me. The angel again is going to be telling John stuff. Okay, in in Revelation 22. So Revelation 22, you know, hearkens back to this this angel telling John stuff. Kind of like the first chapter did even though we it was a little hard to know again who the cast of characters actually is. Then the angel showed me the river of life and you know, bright as crystal and all this this Edenic imagery stuff. Shows him the throne of God, the lamb. The throne of the lamb, not the lamb, but the throne of the lamb. So the the water of life is flowing from the throne of God and of the lamb. By the way, you know, there is that one or two thrones now? Is it a shared throne? Is it two thrones? You know, like like okay, is is it always the same in Revelation? Do we wind up with one that's that's occupied by Again, you have all these questions as you as you're reading through the book of Revelation. And this isn't even the prophecy stuff. This is just the other stuff. And you get to verse 6. Okay. And he said to me, Okay, he we have to assume that's the angel from verse 1. Okay. The angel said to me. And by the way, let's complicate it even more. In Greek, verse 22 doesn't say then the angel showed me. It says then he showed me. Greek actually has the pronoun. But the ESV, you know, is the translator is doing us a favor or is he by saying angel? Again, he's trying to disambiguate the pronouns, but good luck with that. Okay. Verse 6. Then he said to me again, whoever the he is. These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place. And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book. Wait a minute. Wait, wait, wait, wait. And he said to me, Okay. And then we have a switch to the first person. Behold, I am coming. So the speaker must be the I there. So who's coming? Well, wait, you know, how do we figure this out because you know, it doesn't seem like it could be God. Seems like it can't be God. You know, unless of course this is a reference to the day of the Lord judgment. Well, then you know, okay, we can go back to the Old Testament and sort of think in those terms. But you you would think more that it's Jesus. Again, you know, God would be coming figuratively like to to punish. Okay, the the day of the Lord stuff. Jesus is the one who'd actually be showing up, you know, on earth. So Jesus is coming. You know, we saw in Revelation 19 what that's going to look like, you know, the Armageddon scene and all that. The rider on the white horse who wears the name of God. And and the rider of the white horse is identified as the word of God, which of course is Jesus. So in that sense it's kind of both. It's one you know, there's there's we probably have to land on one, but it's kind of both, you know. So here we go again. And and is this the angel or not? So, you know, the ESV of course has made kind of a decision for us in that regard, but we don't have to take that as, you know, part and upon gospel truth either. So again, there's there's just stuff to think about. So in in verse 8, let's go to verse 8. That was that was verses, you know, 6 and 7. I John am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, you must not do that. Ah, that's that's a little different. You think if it was Jesus, you know, he'd be okay with that. But the angel says I don't do that. Is it the same angel? Oh, sure hope so because then it gets even worse. Okay. I John am the one who heard and saw these things. When I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, you must not do that. I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God. Okay. So again, this is angel. We got first person. And it so it feels okay, representational. We don't we're not sure about the identity of the angel. You know, would the angel of the Lord have actually said, "Hey, don't worship me, you know, worship God." Well, if if the angel of the Lord is the one in Joshua 5, he doesn't say that. He says, "Hey, take your shoes off." You're standing on holy ground. It's the same language as in Exodus 3. So we got it again, we've we've got it's it's muddled. We're not sure what's going on here. So, you know, what do we do with that? Well, we keep reading. We hit verse 12. Behold, I am coming soon. Now, first person language. I am coming soon bringing my recompense with me to repay each one for what he has done. And I am the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. So, is this the angel who didn't want to be worshipped talking or is it Jesus? If it's the angel, it's representational very obviously. Like Jesus has told him, "Okay, this when you when you when you hit John again, this is what you say. And it's okay to use the first person cuz you're my representative, all right?" So again, question, how do we parse this? Then then we get get to verse 16 and now look at what happens. I Jesus It's like you know, you look at this and go, "Please don't say that." Cuz now it gets even worse. I Jesus have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star. So here Jesus could sort of step in as the speaker or is it the angel just using the first person? But would the angel really call himself Jesus? That just sounds I don't know. Well, if Jesus told him to say that, he would. It's just like, yeah, boy, this is this is you know, how many times are we going to get our minds played with here? You know, welcome to the book of Revelation. Okay. So it's really difficult to know what Revelation does with God and Jesus and the angel. Are they the same? Are they different? Is the answer yes? I mean, honestly, good luck with that. But let's set all that aside. This one thing we can know by what by virtue of what we just read. In Revelation 1 through 1 5 through 8, God is the alpha and omega. That that's probably the case. That's the best bet there. He's the one sending the angel to John. Maybe it is Jesus. Maybe it's an angel who was also sent by Jesus, you know, at the end. Okay, but you know, we have the angel winding up not accepting worship. Okay, so let's let's try to you know, you know, factor that in here. In Revelation 22, Jesus is also called the alpha and the omega. So, you know, the angel could be speaking for Jesus, but his point is that Jesus is the alpha and omega. Whereas before you'd have probably God taking that title. In Revelation 22 as well, we are told that Jesus sent the angel. So if we take that at face value, even if it's the angel telling John this, the point is still that hey, Jesus sent me. Well, if Jesus sent him, then you go back to chapter 1 verses 5 through 8 and it very it says God sent. Okay, I mean it it that's really the the most coherent way again to read the initial chapters or the initial chapter. You know, because in verse 8, I am the alpha and omega says the Lord God. So if he's the sender in chapter 1 of the angel, whoever that is, and if Jesus is the sender in 22, guess what? They're both referred to as alpha and omega. The what the passages do, what Revelation 1 and Revelation 22 do is to link God with Jesus. You know, God as Jesus, Jesus as God. And then it throws in this angel talk. Because in some places the angel seems to be Jesus or really, really close. And all of that, that convoluted kind of stuff is part of what we call angelomorphic Christology. It you know, don't think, "Oh, this is the Jehovah's Witnesses. They're going to love this because now Jesus gets to be an angel." No, think of Jesus as a messenger of God precisely the way the angel of the Lord was the messenger of God in the Old Testament. And then I hope you recall, if you're an Unseen Realm reader, you recall Genesis 48 15 and 16 where the angel and God are grammatically fused together by a singular verb. May he bless the boys. Which one? The angel or or how or God? Yes. Again, this is all part of the same arc, all part of the same trajectory. And what Luke has done, you know, to to loop back, you know, to the our starting point in Luke 24:42, when Luke drops in the honeycomb. When he when that detail is included, it's going to make the ancient reader think of Jesus as that particular angel back in the Old Testament that was leading the nation of Israel. Okay, when the bread from heaven fell that that tasted like a honeycomb. And he's going to think of Psalm 78 that refers to the manna in this way. It's the food of angels. Luke wants people to to to realize this is not just a man that was raised from the dead physically. Yes, that is what's what's standing here in front of the apostle the disciples, okay? Yes, okay, we have a we have a confirmation of a physical resurrection. We got more than that. We got more than that. Luke wants his readers to to connect this scene to this other complex of ideas about the angel, you know, angels first and then the angel again associated with this food of the food of the angels honey thing. And then think of you know, the wider you know, context when they might think of Joseph and Asenath. When you have the the chief of the angels, the captain of the Lord's host again, if we were reading it in Greek, that links back to Joshua 5. And if you had a really astute reader, somebody who could read Hebrew, they would know that Joshua 5 links into two angel of the Lord passages in the Hebrew Bible, the only other two that use the phrase. So, basically we get to the Jewish Godhead through a piece of honeycomb. Again, this is how this is not only how scripture works in its interlinkability. This is how scripture cooperates with other Second Temple Jewish material to prompt and prod and direct readers toward interlinkability. This is what these writers are doing. They want to connect dots and they want to see their they want to help their readers to connect dots. Revelation is part of it. You know, the New Testament is Second Temple literature. I mean, isn't it? Second Temple period goes to round numbers, you know, you could say 70 AD or 100 AD. I mean, you know, it's you know, what's a couple decades? You know, it's the same complex here. You know, this this Jewish Christianity that has come out of of you know, Second Temple Judaism with its high Christology, you know, it's effort to understand that the two Yahweh's mindset, these you know, angelomorphic crea- you know, figures of the Old Testament, you know, whether it be Michael or the angel of the Lord, you know, who are are not the same. But you know, they they're so they they they bear enough similarities that that some some you know, writers thought that they maybe they are the same, you know? So, this is the discussion that was going on in antiquity. And so Jesus again, just drop the honeycomb in there. It's Luke's way of reminding readers to think along these lines about who Jesus is in this scene. So again, that's that's a long way to traverse, but again, this is this is how scripture, you know, connects. This is how it propels connectivity. And again, with the wider world of of other people writing about scripture, this is how this is what they're trying to do. This is what they're trying to get their readers to think. Trying to get their readers to notice things and connect dots. So, it's not about honeybee eschatology? No, it's not. And it's also not about Babylon bee eschatology. Put Babylon bee in here. There you go, perfect. All right, Mike. Well, next week, do you know what we're covering? I have no idea. No idea. All right, we're flying flying here, folks. We have no idea what's going on. All right. That's right. Put the blindfold on. All right, sounds good, Mike. Well, that was a good one. All right, well, we'll get people out of that. So, with that, I want to thank you everybody for listening to the Naked Bible podcast. God bless. Thanks for listening to the Naked Bible podcast. To support this podcast, visit www.nakedbibleblog.com. To learn more about Dr. Heiser's other websites and blogs, go to www.drmsh.com.