Tuesday, August 07, 2018

Notes for Luke 15:23

NIV: "Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate" (NIV).

NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible:
fattened calf. Would feed the entire village. Calves would be fattened with a special occasion in mind, such as a wedding, a son’s coming of age, or some other celebration beyond the purview of the parable. A fattened calf offered more meat than a young goat (v. 29). have a feast. A person of means invited as many people as possible to a major celebration.

The IVP New Testament Commentary Series:
the son proceeds with his confession, but the father interrupts. The son is satisfied to be a slave, but the father will restore him to full sonship. So the father orders the servants to bring the best robe, a ring for the son's hand and sandals for his feet. A fattened calf is prepared, and a party will be held. Fatted calves were saved for special occasions like the Day of Atonement. This is not just any party; it is a rare and complete celebration. There will be rejoicing for the lost son, now found (vv. 7, 10).

Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke:

Within the co-text provided by the parable itself as well as the co-text in which the parable is set, the father’s instructions in vv 23–24 bear particular significance. As in the parables of the lost sheep and lost coin, recovery gives way to celebration (vv 5–6, 9).²⁴⁶ Here, though, that celebration comes in the guise of a full-blown banquet, with the table set with the best and most expensive beef, enough for dozens, perhaps even scores, of guests.²⁴⁷ It is as if the father had declared, “Spare no effort! Spare no expense!” Why? Because the son who had slandered his father, the son who had proposed to return as nothing more than a day laborer in his father’s fields, is nevertheless “this son of mine” (v 24).

In a footnote, Green explains:
The adjective σιτευτός refers here to grain-fed beef. In Through Peasant Eyes (94), K. E. Bailey notes that a slaughtered calf would provide enough meat for 35 to 75 persons; elsewhere he speaks of over a hundred at the table (Poet and Peasant, 187).

Luke Timothy John's Comments Regarding Luke 15:23:
the fatted calf. Is literally "the grain-fed" (sitos). In contrast to the cattle left to graze on grass, the beast destined for special feasts is stuffed with grain to put on extra weight and tenderness. It is a mark of great esteem to spend this valuable possession for a celebration. The phrase occurs in the LXX of Judg 6:25, 28 and Jer 46:21.

See Johnson's The Gospel of Luke, page 238.

Bernard S. Jackson also published a work with Brill in 2008 entitled Essays on Halakhah in the New Testament. Chapter Six of the book is "The Jewish Background to the Prodigal Son: An Unrsolved Problem" (page 111). Jackson supplies helpful remarks about the fatted calf throughout the chapter, but please consult page 147 for an estimate of how many people might be fed by the calf. He relies on Bailey on that page.

Of course, calves and bulls were sacrificed to Jehovah God in ancient times. Yet the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery edited by Leland Ryken, et al. points to other uses of calves (page 484):

A fatted (grain-fed, stall-kept) calf also symbolized hospitality and celebration. When guests arrived, proper etiquette dictated a meal with meat (Gen 18:7; 1 Sam 28:24). This show of proper respect for the guest also provided an opportunity to display the prosperity of the host. The indolence of the calf tied in its stall for fattening typifies those who do no work (Jer 46:21). A diet of fatted calves marks an opulent, indulgent life style (Amos 6:4). The fatted calf appears as a symbol of exuberant celebration in the parable of the prodigal son (Lk 15:23). In the days prior to refrigeration, meat was used quickly; hence the amount of food butchered indicates the size of the celebration. A feast built around the slaughter of a “fattened calf” might well include as many as two hundred guests (see Hospitality).



37 comments:

Duncan said...

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/do-hidden-opiates-our-food-explain-food-addictions1

Duncan said...

https://juniperpublishers.com/jojo/pdf/JOJO.MS.ID.555638.pdf

"It appears possible that the type of gene mutation that produces the opioid effect in milk and meat may also produce genetic abnormalities
in the human genome leading to diseases such as autism, Alzheimer’s, heart disease and other chronic debilities."

This is an advert for a certain type of milk but the meat statement is correct. So it is no surprise that people might rejoice eating it.

Duncan said...

https://www.ancient.eu/article/684/food-in-the-roman-world/

The ancient Mediterranean diet revolved around four staples, which, even today, continue to dominate restaurant menus and kitchen tables: cereals, vegetables, olive oil and wine. Seafood, cheese, eggs, meat and many types of fruit were also >>available to those who could afford it<<.

That said, I am not even sure that oil was used primarily for food and how much was available to the masses.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9JJdqJ8YGH8C&pg=PA326&lpg=PA326&dq=olive+oil+roman+fuel+or+food&source=bl&ots=JHmXzQPyss&sig=nrwM3d-cEJiLXKXUcK1lpnY1p5k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIhM3msN3cAhUkCcAKHSGJDGA4ChDoATAAegQIARAB#v=onepage&q=olive%20oil%20roman%20fuel%20or%20food&f=false

I would be interested to know the ratio of usages..

Note that your extracts only reference one NT verse & that is metaphor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatted_calf

Duncan said...

http://www.christianorigins.div.ed.ac.uk/2018/06/20/eatenbyworms/

Wealthy, meat eaters?

Edgar Foster said...

The Journal of Ophthamology you linked above says such and such "may" produce X, Y, Z. That's not a statement of overwhelming certainty. Furthermore, one has to prove that there is a causal link between milk/meat consumption and autism, Alzheimer's, etc. We just cannot assert such is the case. Finally, none of what's presented here proves that eating meat is unethical or ungodly. Sure, there may be times to refrain from eating meat, but that has nothing to do with the commands of God. But we've been here before. :)

Edgar Foster said...

Correction, I did read some of the journal article, but the statement about autism (and so forth) is evidently from an advert instead, as you mentioned above.

Edgar Foster said...

I would not say that the "fatted calf" reference in Luke 15:23 is metaphor: it's mentioned within the context of a parable told by Jesus, but he was referring to an actual fatted calf, not a symbolic one. For example, if I tell a story in order to make a moral point, and I mention a bull or dog in the story, that does not mean the animals are metaphorical.

The reason I only dealt with one verse is because I'm trying to understand the verse better and the text could show (possibly) God's view of meat consumption.

Duncan said...

Does a nutrition scientist in ANY paper say "does" or is it always "may"?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2173580816301298

http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/12/mayo-clinic-how-alzheimers-and-heart-disease-happen.html

Coming back to the same conclusions as for heart health. Controlled studies are underway using Esselstyn methods. No reason to expect anything other than the same level of success as heart studies.

Even if metals are a factor they need a good transport mechanism into the brain & that is saturated fat.

I really don't think I need to say anymore on that subject - lets wait for the results. ;)

Duncan said...

Why would it show gods view on meat consumption?

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102007054

Drawing From Familiar Examples - which does not have to be current as I already pointed out the examples of this are OT based.

Edgar Foster said...

Scholarly papers in general normally use qualifiers quite a bit, so that is understandable. But one must be extremely cautious when trying to demonstrate causation. I'm reminded of the hackneyed expression, "Correlation does not prove causation." Just because B follows A (even regularly) does not mean that A causes B.

Even if saturated fat isn't good for us, does that mean it's unethical to eat it? IMO, it makes sense to reduce one's intake of saturated fat, but I don't believe it's sinful to eat a hamburger. There's just no scriptural basis for that belief.

The parable potentially shows God's view of meat consumption because here we have a godly family welcoming back a wayward son by preparing a hugh feast for him that includes lots of meat. It's not just this one account, but we have other passages from scripture or the Mishnah where such meat consumption is approved by Jews.

I'm not saying that the account all by itself would prove that God has no objection to his people eating meat. But if we read Luke 15:23 in conjunction with Gen. 9:3ff, Acts 10 and 1 Tim 4:1-5, there is reason to believe that Christians are free to eat meat if they so choose. If I'm wrong, I'll take my lumps later. :)

Duncan said...

Ok let's look at this another way. Is there any other OT examples of celebrations that do not include some meat based celebration? Because I can demonstrates such celebrations from Egypt and others that may predate such NT examples as something that is just a part of a cattle culture with meat addiction in a number of ways. Not just as meat but as possessions.

Today it is specifically grain fed beef that has the largest single impact on evident global warming. So are we talking about a driven, self fulfilling prophecy. So is Jehovah making what's happening. So who is the God of this aeon?

"I want obedience and not sacrifice"

When Solomon killed all those cattle was it the sacrifice that was approved or was it the culling.

Duncan said...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4315796/How-humans-created-Sahara-desert-8-000-years-ago.html

Duncan said...

2 Peter 3:10

Edgar Foster said...

We know that Israel observed festivals that did not involve meat, but rather celebrated harvests. And I'm not arguing that a celebration has to contain meat. My point is that Christian freedom allows us to enjoy meat at celebrations or with our meals if we so choose. But I would not say meat is something you must have in a meal.

There are other types of meat besides grain fed beef, and some question whether global warming or climate change is occurring. Maybe it is, but I don't see that as a reason to avoid meat altogether. We should be good stewards toward the earth (Revelation 11:18). But many things are beyond our control and I see no scriptural evidence of a divine mandate for avoiding grain fed beef, chicken or pork now. Besides, look at all the damage our vehicles are doing/have done to the environment.

The God os this aeon is either Satan, which I believe, or some argue that it's Almighty God. Let's say the world's god is Satan--that does not mean the aeon is completely tainted.

"I want obedience and not sacrifice" was uttered in a particular context. Did that mean God did not want animal sacrifices at all? Jehovah accepted Abel's offering, but rejected Cain's vegetation. Furthermore, no forgiveness occurs unless blood is offered (Hebrews 9:22). Heb. 10:3-4 mentions the blood of bulls and goats that were offered on Atonement Day. God required sacrifice, but without obedience, it meant nothing.

Consider all the times that Jehovah smelled a pleasant fragrance when humans offered sacrifices to him (Exodus 29:18); an experience that was ultimately fulfilled through his Son's death (Ephesians 5:1-2).

Edgar Foster said...

I know how UK periodicals tend to be, having lived there for a little while. So I will no longer be posting articles from the Daily Mail or related publications in the combox. The Sahara Desert article is interesting, but I found it many other places in more respectable publications. I'm not trying to be overly critical, but the Daily Mail presents a serious article with bikini stories on the side, quite literally. To me, these periodicals constitute mind pollution. :)

Duncan said...

Apologies for the Ads. I use an ad-blocker so did not see them.

As far as the global warming goes. The evidence to those who are paying attention speaks for itself. But when over 90% of science is in favor of anthropomorphic climate change I think we are in the realms of saying "does" rather than "may". The evidence is that it has been going on for a long time in the wake of agriculture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#United_States

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378013001477

With global temperature record being broken all over the planet this year & Forrest fires in Norway. No one remembers this happening before in recorded history and if we get a "blue ocean event" this year at the pole....

"Consider all the times that Jehovah smelled a pleasant fragrance when humans offered sacrifices to him (Exodus 29:18); an experience that was ultimately fulfilled through his Son's death (Ephesians 5:1-2)."

I ask again, What was actually pleasing to Jehovah. The sacrifice as a sacrifice or as a cull of domestic animals.

I think it no coincidence that one of the Hindu celebrations still involve the cull of thousands of cattle in a country where a domestic animal is allowed to breed but no one eats.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/11/28/2392A54900000578-2852739-image-21_1417181809226.jpg

Note - just the picture, not a page.

Duncan said...

This may explain the jump in temperatures this year:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ovq2El0mvE

Duncan said...

https://www.openbible.info/labs/cross-references/search?q=1+Samuel+15%3A22

Duncan said...

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/maybe-this-is-the-summer-we-all-start-to-believe-in-global-warming-1.3585954

Duncan said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRnWcBK9kTQ

Edgar Foster said...

Firstly, I want to emphasize that I'm not a global warming/claimate change denier. I don't know whether global warming is occurring, but it could be. NASA says the case is compelling for global warming: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Here is another article about the subject--https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-real/

In any event, I feel a personal responsibility toward earth's care because of biblical teaching. I don't need the threat of claimate change to make me care about the planet.

We can't strip the verses about sacrifice from their proper context. If God didn't want sacrifice, then why did he accept Abel's and so many others, including Abraham's and Noah's? Why was there a daily offering in Jerusalem of many animals if God did not want sacrifice?

Duncan said...

Things did and do change over time. Did he accept the sacrifice specifically or the intent being given from the persons means? The Abel situation is problematic & we are lacking some of the information. We can hypothesis it but we have no evidence about intent or reasons for acceptance.

In the Abraham situation he stated that god would provide a lamb but what actually substituted was a ram with its horns stuck in a thicket:-

https://www.backyardherds.com/threads/freak-accident-to-yearling-horned-ram.31416/

Noah gave from what he had.

I do not question the motives.

Edgar Foster said...

I use an ad blacker too, but for some reason, it did not block Daily Mail's ads. But were they ads or rather articles I'm referencing?

On global warming, I would say it is probably happening. For one thing, a posteriori knowledge is always probabilistic: either weakly or strongly probabilistic. That is why scientific consensuses have existed in the past that later turned out to be flawed. For example, the 19th century view of minorities that European anthropologists held at one time is now universally rejected by contemporary anthropologists. I'm sure that other examples could be adduced including scientific views of intelligence. My point is that we cannot accept science uncritically, even when there is a consensus among scientists. As I said earlier, I'm not a climate change denier anyway, just as "agnostic."

What was pleasing to Jehovah? The relevant verses say the sacrifice itself brought about a pleasing aroma to him. Why would the culling of animals have been pleasing to the Israelite deity? What language in the Bible suggest that was the case?

"And Jehovah smelled the sweet savor; and Jehovah said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake, for that the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more everything living, as I have done" (Genesis 8:21 ASV).

"And all its fat he shall remove, as the fat is removed from the peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a pleasing aroma to the LORD. And the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven" (Lev. 4:31 ESV).

Lev. 4:29-30 emphasize that culling was not the issue here. No, God is said to have found "pleasure" in the sacrificial offering.

Another question that comes to mind is, if God did not want sacrifice, why does Heb. 9:22 state that sin could only be forgiven through sacrifice involving blood. Admittedly, animals only provided a token style of forgiveness, but they foreshadowed the ultimate blood sacrifice (Heb. 10:1-4).






Edgar Foster said...

ad blacker should be ad blocker. :)

Edgar Foster said...

From the New American Commentary on Leviticus by MArk Rooker.

This burnt offering by fire was “an aroma pleasing to the LORD” (1:9). The phrase rêaḥ nîḥôaḥ lyhwh, “aroma pleasing to the LORD,” should not be understood in a physical sense connected with the sense of smell, for it was an archaic expression describing satisfaction with the offering. As Harris describes: “The point is that the
sacrifice gives an aroma of tranquility by bringing peace between God and the worshiper.” Hence, prescribed worship is to bring pleasure to God. Furthermore the LXX translates rēaḥ nîḥôaḥ, “pleasant aroma,” the thrice repeated Hebrew phrase in Leviticus 1, with the phrase osmē euōdias, “sweet aroma.” This Greek phrase is used to describe the sacrifice of Jesus Christ in Eph 5:2. Christ gave his life as an “aroma pleasing to the LORD.” This same phrase is used to portray the sacrifice of Christian giving (Phil 4:18).

Edgar Foster said...

If we're going by the textual language and many texts at that, I see no reason to eschew the idea that God was pleased with the sacrifice itself. Please see the remarks from Rooker, which could be multiplied. Now a sacrifice per se was not sufficient; it had to be offered in the right spirit and in accord with divine ordinances. Cf. Cain and Abel and King Saul.

I agree that the Bible does not give many details on Cain and Abel, but Genesis and 1 John along with Hebrews affirm that Cain's sacrifice was rejected because of his attitude/behavior. Jude even mentions (pejoratively) the path of Cain. But would Jehovah have accepted Cain's offering if he did show faith? The Bible doesn't say, but we know Jehovah accepted Abel's offering, which required the shedding of blood. We cannot be dogmatic in the case of Abel, but Heb. 9:22 would later affirm that blood was required to receive forgiveness of sins.

Was the ram provided to Abraham offered to Jehovah? Why supply the animal if it wasn't sacrificed?

To my knowledge, the only type of sacrifices that were acceptable to Jehovah for the sake of atonement were blood sacrifices. My point about Noah was that regardless of his motivations for offering animal sacrifices, Jehovah reportedly smelled a pleasing aroma when Noah performed the action.

Duncan said...

One cannot ignore older cultures seeing smoke as a cleanser. I believe many native Americans see smoke this way but it does not have to come from an animal.

Duncan said...

Can you think of any sacrifice to Jehovah that involved a wild animal other than perhaps a bird for sin offering? They were all domesticated animals that are protected from predators. Without killing enough of them they would turn the land to dust.

Duncan said...

https://youtu.be/YBLZmwlPa8A

Not sure if it's in this video but Liu firstly had to remove domestic goats from the land before restoration could commence as they eat all new tree saplings. It was they that kept the land in a degraded state. They have to be controlled.

Duncan said...

https://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/AUSS/2006-1/2006-1-02.pdf

Duncan said...

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b5a4/4e115644b297a24d738dd8683ebbb54d83ca.pdf

Duncan said...

http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b9789047400912s015

Duncan said...

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Yyh8jsDILiYC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=sumerian+sweet+smelling+odor&source=bl&ots=stAVQOp4QN&sig=Nv_9C36P-A7tfIUupVdCBIGHDlE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvm5TLgOHcAhXKLMAKHQOoDRkQ6AEwCXoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=sumerian%20sweet%20smelling%20odor&f=false

Duncan said...

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gJUtcp0FdJYC&pg=PA273&lpg=PA273&dq=sumerian+sweet+smelling+odor&source=bl&ots=DwIs8dqx9p&sig=DHCR-3hEVEvt_SlSGa37lpq8msc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWoMergeHcAhVBCMAKHXlvAnk4ChDoATAFegQIAhAB#v=onepage&q=sumerian%20sweet%20smelling%20odor&f=false

Hickory chips, anyone?

Edgar Foster said...

Duncan,

I realize that some older cultures practiced things differently from the ancient Hebrews, but I don't see how that impacts our understanding of ancient Judaism or Christianity. I mean, okay, we can always learn something from anthropology or history but not everything is relevant to OT or NT exgesis. The Israelites/Hebrews believed that cleansing of sin only came about through blood. I see no evidence from the Bible that animals were being killed for culling purposes. As for the animals sacrificed, Insight on the Scriptures has a comprehensive listing of all the offerings made to Jehovah.

Based on your links above, note the difference between Scripture and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Jehovah did not just feel satisfied over smoke from wood, according to the Bible writers.

I've said all I'm gonna say in this thread. I will consider the other files and this subject will likely rear its head again in the near future. Thanks for your input. Comments to this thread are closed.





Duncan said...

https://sethlsanders.wordpress.com/2018/08/14/what-is-a-source/

Duncan said...

I could not find the list in the insight book on JW library so I went back to Leviticus chapter 1 focusing on verse 14 in the Pulpit Commentary.

States - If the burnt sacrifice for his offering to the Lord be of fowls. A comparison of Leviticus 12:8 leads us to infer that the permission to offer a bird was a concession to poverty. The pigeon and the turtle-dove were the most easy to procure, as the domestic fowl was at this time unknown to the Hebrews. The first and only allusion in the Bible to the hen occurs in the New Testament (Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:30, nor is there any representation of the domestic fowl in ancient Egyptian paintings. The domicile of the bird was still confined to India. A single pigeon or turtle-dove formed a sacrifice, and there was no rule in respect to sex, as there was in the case of the quadrupeds.

Focusing on "as the domestic fowl was at this time unknown to the Hebrews."

See :-

https://www.pigeoncontrolresourcecentre.org/html/about-pigeons.html#about2

I see no reason to suppose its uses have been the same since the beginning of agriculture.

1) The accumulation of potash (Guano).

2) Carrier Pidgeons.

3) The droppings also used in leather production.