On Sunday, the first day of the week, and the third day after Jesus had been crucified, the news spread quickly that the tomb in which He was interred was discovered that morning to be empty, that some had experienced an angelic vision saying Jesus was alive, and that some had even seen Him, though in a form they didn’t at first recognize. But His own apostles, excepting John and to perhaps a lesser extent Peter, couldn’t believe it. For they rightly understood that mortal life could not have been restored to Jesus’ crucified body as it had to Jairus’ daughter and Lazarus, and they as yet had no understanding of the nature of His resurrection body that had been raised to immortal life. Thus, when Jesus appeared to them that evening and in spite of His first words to them, “Peace to you”, they supposed they must be seeing a spirit and were terrified, just as we would be if we experienced something we thought to be a ghost in a haunted house. But after bidding them to see His hands and feet and side and to handle Him to see that it was really Him and that He was alive, their unbelief as something impossible turned to an unbelief of joy, that it was simply too good to be true. For one thing they had come to learn in this world that reflects the nature of its god was that if something seems too good to be true, it probably isn’t. But not so with the true God, who delights to surprise His children with unimaginable gifts of joy. And so to address their lingering doubts, He asked if they had something to eat. For from the beginning of creation, there is hardly anything more identified with human life than eating and drinking, not just for sustenance, but for engaging in fellowship as part of a covenant community, whether it be with one’s family, or with the people of God, and especially with God Himself as our Creator. For as physical food is necessary to grow to maturity, and then to sustain and daily strengthen us, so do we also have need of spiritual food from the mouth of God to grow to spiritual maturity and to daily sustain and strengthen us; cf. Deut 8:3, Isa 55:1-2, 1Co 3:1-2, Heb 5:12-14, 1Pe 2:2.
What exactly was it that they gave to Him to eat? See Luk 24:42. Is there any significance that Luke notes the fish was broiled? Note that the word means roasted, and is only found here and in Exo 12:8-9 in reference to how the Passover was to be prepared. It is therefore possible that Luke included this additional detail as a reminder to the reader of Christ’s sacrifice as our Passover Lamb, from which He had just been raised. Note also that the KJV, reflecting a reading from a 9th century manuscript, also says He ate from a honeycomb. What would be the spiritual significance of Jesus eating from a honeycomb that may have led to this reading finding its way into the text? See Sol 5:1; cf. Psa 19:10, Pro 16:24. Although it is possible Jesus ate from a honeycomb as a picture from Scripture of the intimacy He would now enter into with the Church as His Bride, and of the sweetness of the spiritual land of milk and honey into which He was leading her by His pleasant words of truth, should we ever allow our own theological understanding to posit things that the Scripture does not specifically say in order to bolster our views? See Deut 4:2, 5:32, 12:32, Jos 1:7, Pro 30:6. In what way does this principle apply to the belief by many based on Isa 50:6 that Jesus had His beard plucked out as part of His suffering? Although the passage has prophetic significance for Jesus’ passion, should we necessarily assume that every aspect of it is speaking about Jesus, especially when we would expect such an obvious fulfillment to be noted by the New Testament writers if it was true? Note also that the LXX, which was the “Bible” of the early Church and may reflect an older textual tradition than the Masoretic text of our Old Testament, does not say “I gave…my cheeks to those who pluck out the beard”, but “I gave…my cheeks to blows”, where blows (ῥάπισμα) is the exact same word used in Mar 14:65, Joh 18:22, 19:3 for the slaps or blows to the face Jesus did receive.
What is the significance not only that the resurrected Jesus ate something with the disciples to demonstrate His real, physical body, but that what He ate wasn’t just bread or some other fruit of the field, but a piece of fish? Note in Luk 24:41 anything here to eat is literally anything here that is edible or eatable, so the purpose seems clearly to show that His resurrection body was fully capable of eating, and thereby enjoying fellowship with other men. Is it surprising that the resurrected Jesus ate a piece of fish, which God granted as food only after the flood (Gen 9:3), whereas from the beginning in His perfect creation people only ate plants and their fruit (Gen 1:29-30)? Cf. Joh 21:9-10,13. What does this teach us about the notions of some that in order to get close to God it is necessary to get back to the original creation by eating only certain foods? See Rom 14:17, Col 2:16,20-23, 1Ti 4:1-5. On the other hand, should we suppose that Jesus’ example at that time was necessarily normative for all time and circumstances? See 1Co 10:23; cf. Rom 14:1-4,13-23, 1Co 10:24-33. Is it possible that when the restoration of all things is complete and the fullness of His kingdom has come that people will necessarily still eat meat? Cf. Isa 11:6-9, 65:25, Rev 21:5.