all-creatures.org
Bible Study, Discussion, and Commentary

Bible - God - Lord - Jesus - Holy Spirit - Jewish - Christian - Intent - Concession - Creation - Heaven - Hell - Love - Compassion - Prophecy - Ethics - Environment - Soul - Spirit - Humans - Animals - Angels - and much more

| Home Page | Table of Contents |

Luke 24:41-43

41    And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42    And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43    And he took it, and did eat before them.
(KJV)

A commentary by Frank L. Hoffman:

Many vegetarians (vegans) believe that Jesus was a vegetarian, and these verses are used to "prove" that He wasn't, for they indicate that He ate fish.  The vegetarian argument is that He could have just eaten the honeycomb, and not the fish.  It is this discussion that has prompted me to write this commentary (see Veg-Christian discussion following this commentary). 

Jesus had risen from the dead and had appeared before His disciples, who didn't fully believe that what they were seeing before them was really the risen Jesus.  They thought they were seeing a vision, or a spirit, or a phantom, but could not fully grasp that what they were beholding was, in fact, the bodily resurrected Jesus.   Thus, Jesus requests something to eat to show them that He wasn't a phantom, and that He could eat or consume food just as they could.

We should keep in mind that when reading the King James old English that the term, "meat" (verse 41), does not necessarily mean flesh, but food in general. 

Concerning the phrase, "and of an honeycomb", in verse 42, which does not appear in the Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Version, or the New International Version, note the following:

"These words are absent from the most important uncial [old Latin lettered] manuscripts; but it is difficult to account for their having found their way into the text unless we suppose them to be genuine.  They are unquestionably of high antiquity, being quoted by Athanasius and the two Cyrils, and extant of many uncial and nearly all cursive manuscripts."¹

Another discussion arises over the translation of verse 43, and what Jesus actually ate.  Most translations say that He ate "it", thus the interpretation could be that Jesus ate the honeycomb and not the fish.  A few translations say that He ate "these".  The Greek really doesn't say either "it" or "these".   They have been added by translators for clarification.  The Greek says: "And taking before them, He ate."  What did He eat?  We don't really know.  It could have been either or both.

If in fact Jesus did or did not eat fish, should it affect the faith of a Christian vegetarian?  I don't believe it should.  If a person is an ethical vegetarian, one who believes we should do no harm to any of God's creatures (human and non-human) or to the environment, then this belief is totally in tune with the original creation intent of God, and as He depicts our heavenly existence.  The importance of these verses is not to argue over whether or not Jesus was or wasn't a vegetarian; the importance is to show the extent to which Jesus goes to help His disciples believe in Him and follow Him. 

Jesus first needed to attract the attention of His disciples before they could do His good works which He prepared beforehand (Ephesians 2:10).  What was prepared beforehand?  The Garden of Eden, a place where there was no death, a place where all of God's creatures ate only a plant-based diet.  And we also should remember what Jesus tells us in John 14:12: that we should be able to do even greater works than He was able to accomplish while on this earth in bodily form.  If Jesus felt it was necessary to eat fish along with His followers, then He had a God-based reason for doing so.  That doesn't mean that we should eat fish today and cause pain and suffering to other animals.  We can do a greater work.

References:

1. Cook, F. C. ed., The Bible Commentary, Vol. VII, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1981, 469.

| Home Page | Table of Contents |

Veg-Christian Comment by Saiom Nellie Shriver

I believe that Jesus provided fish for others but did not eat it himself

Veg-Christian comment by Maynard S. Clark

Then, if this is/were the case, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to use THAT (image of) Jesus as a moral paradigm for ethical vegetarianism.

Why not merely scrap the entire idea?

Veg-Christian comment by Johnny Clayton

Saiom, greetings:

"Luke 24:42-43 states 'They [the disciples] gave him [the risen Christ] a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.' "

I don't think that Jesus was a vegetarian, but I do think that if he had been born into our society he would be appalled at factory farming methods, and though secondary to his mission to people, he would speak out against it. I wouldn't presume to say whether he would be a vegetarian, but there is a long and continuing line of Christian vegetarians, and it is in no way incomaptible.

Veg-Christian comment by Paul Willems, D.C.

Johnny Clayton wrote:

"I believe that Jesus provided fish for others but did not eat it himself.. similar to the following: 

Saiom, greetings.

Luke 24:42-43 states 'They [the disciples] gave him [the risen Christ] a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.' "

Actually the verse says they gave him a piece of a broiled fish and of an honeycomb. And he took "it" and did eat before them. "It" is singular so which did he eat the piece of fish or the honeycomb? Clearly the verse doesn't say he ate them which would imply he ate both.

| Home Page | Table of Contents |

Commentary by Michael Shaw:

Dear Frank,

Regarding Luke 23:41-43. It is true what you say, and for those Christians who believe the Bible to be someway the dictated word of God, then they are left with this problem of how Jesus, be he prophet or God, could lower himself to eat the flesh of a dead animal.

New members will not be aware that I do not believe the Bible to be the word of God. I know for a fact that till the time of Constantine, there were bibles used by large numbers of Christians that supported vegetarianism. Constantine had these bibles banned and formed his own version... this is a matter of historical fact! I believe the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church states that Constantine had 30 of these bible written up as a bases for his new version of Christianity.

I believe, as John Davidson, author of the "Original Gospel of Jesus", that the first thing to go when ever a religion becomes part of the mass culture is vegetarianism. Mankind is lustful after flesh be it for eating or sex. Mankind seems driven by a madness, and I do not believe for any reason that Jesus would have followed this example of humanity.

As I have never tired of showing the list, the early church father's writings are full of quotes that Jesus and his disciples were all vegetarian. Further, the church father's writings also say that the earliest Christians were all called Essenes.. again, this is a matter of historical fact and not a matter of faith.

Modern Christians who want to be part of the masses and buy their green mini-vans, take properity courses and make up justifications for not helping the poor can do so and they can cling to their Constintine Bible, but I for one will follow Jesus.

There are not two original manuscripts of the Bible that agree. There is no such thing as an inerrant bible, there never has been. Changes are still taking place in it, especially the NIV (not inspired version). The NIV is the bible of choice by fundamentalists and yet it has had glaring changes made to it to make it say the opposite of any orignal manuscript.

From Constantine to modern NIV translators there has been an evil dark force that wishes to promote division and the passage from Luke is just one example.

The references in the early writings that not only Jesus and his disciples were vegetarian, but so too were many of the early church fathers are too numerous to ignor.

Peace and Eternal Blessings,
Mike Shaw

| Home Page | Table of Contents |

Veg-Christian Comment by Patti

Dear All, I agree with Mike. The bible can and was written and interpreted in so many different ways. I do not rationalize what I do based on the bible, so I am not going to fall into the trap of trying to defend my beliefs and actions based on the bible. I leave that crutch to the non-thinkers to hang on to when they use the bible to say that is their justification for eating meat, because Jesus fed the masses fish! That is their favorite line!

God did not create us as robots. He gave us a mind to think and to evolve. Maybe he did not give us all the answers. He gave us a heart, feelings and emotions. (some of us he gave common sense!) We know what tortured animals go through just to feed meat eaters unnecessarily. Do we want to have this blood on our hands, NO. End of question. Was Jesus a vegetarian. I would certainly hope so. If he was not I would try to convince him to be one, but I would not eat animals whether Jesus did or not. I truly do not believe Jesus was a meat eater. Also, I do not believe Jesus ate meat just to satisfy his peers, to reach them so to speak. That is so unlike him.

I stopped eating red meat when I was 11 yrs. old and never went back. can't remember when I stopped eating chicken but I remember asking God for a sign whether it was wrong or not...not even 2 minutes later at a red light I read someones bumper sticker: Meat Is Murder. I never ate it after that. Even before this I had eaten chicken on two separate occasions and both times I had nightmares. One was where I was being chased by lions. I found scripture in this: Live by the sword; die by the sword.

Thanks for listening,
Patti

| Home Page | Table of Contents |

Veg-Christian comment by Dave Fullmer

You are wise to seek out the truth concerning your views. I fully respect your comments on Luke 24:41-43, yet I would like to offer a thought or two. First, I am a small family farmer who understands the difference between animal welfare and animal rights. I cannot, however, condone the industrial agri-business exploitation of animals. My concience bears witness to the reality I see everyday. In Luke, though, it is obvious that Jesus took the food, which did include fish, and ate it. He was, as you stated, showing the disciples that He had risen in physical form. Many witnessed this fact of history, and believe in a risen Christ. Jesus also, as He grew up, practiced all of the rigorous customs of His faith, including the Passover. As is stated several times in the new testament, Jesus partook of the Passover, celebrating the liberation of Jews from Egyptian bondage. This liberation, as I'm sure you know, came when the Angel of Death passed over the Jews. They were instructed to cover their door lentils with the blood of a lamb. In the Passover observance, the meal that Jesus and His disciples ate was symbolic of the sacrifice of the lamb and the covering of the blood. To be in strict observance of the Passover, Jews ate of the Passover lamb. Jesus followed the law and shared this meal with his followers.

However, the real issue is not whether He was a vegetarian or not, but what His work on the cross means to you and I. From the Bible, I see that Christ's work on the cross established a new covenant with Jew and Gentile alike. In Christ, we are free from sin, created for good works, saved by grace, not from our own doing. Personally, I believe that Christ freed me from legalism, yet His commandments are no less direct. Love the Lord God with all your heart, strength, and mind; and, Love your neighbor as yourself. When Peter began his work for Christ in Acts, he soon recieved a vision from God. In Acts 11:5-9, Peter was shown that "what God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy". This revealed to Peter that he must not show partiality in telling gentiles and jews about Jesus. What customs one uses are not what is important, it is only that Christ be shared in the world. This does not give me license to kill and eat animals any more than it gives others license to kill and eat vegetables. Therefore, it also is no reason to become in bondage to one custom or religious practice over another. Eating meat is no more a sin than eating ochra,( which is quite good, mind you). What we doto animals(or plants) out of wanton gluttony is another matter. Judge for yourselves, if the Holy Spirit is in you, whether you are in sin or not. I, in fear of God, have no wish to judge any man.

Seeking His Will,
Dave Fullmer

| Home Page | Table of Contents |

Veg-Christian comment by A. J. Fecko

Frank, what you write in reference to Luke 24:42-43 is true. Whether the Lord ate part of a fish or not, it's not the all important issue that some anti-vegetarians have made it out to be. However, here is the text in 3 different forms:

1. They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them. Lk 24:42-43 RSV

Number 1 is the wording favored by NIV and most modern versions which have followed the text of Westcott and Hort. It is the one that drops any reference to the honeycomb.

oi de epedwkan autw ichthuoj optow meroj kai labwn enwpion autwn efagen.

2. And they gave him a pece of a broyled fisshe and of an hony combe. And he toke it and ate it before them. Lk 24:42-43 Tyndale

And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. Lk 24:42-43 King James Version

Number 2 is the wording in the so- called "Byzantine text" or Majority text, and was the one used by the translators of KJV as well as Young's Literal Translation. Here are a couple variants of it:

I. oi de epedwkan autw ichthuoj optow meroj kai apo melissiou khriou kai labwn enwpion autwn efagen. II. oi de epedwkan autw ichthuoj optow meroj kai apo melissiou khrion kai labwn enwpion autwn efagen.

3. And they offered him a piece of a broiled fish, and a honeycomb. And when he had eaten before them, taking the remains, he gave to them. Lk 24:42-43 Douay-Rheims

And they proffered to him a part of a fish roasted, and an honeycomb. And when he had eaten before them, he took that that (was) left, and gave to them; Lk 24:42-43 Wycliffe

Number 3 is the wording in the so-called "Caesarean" Greek text, as well as the Latin Vulgate. Athanasius, the 4th century champion of the doctrine of the Trinity quotes the verse in this form. Here are some of the variants of the last part of this verse: I. kai fagwn enwpion autwn labwn ta epiloipa edwken autoij

II. kai ta epiloipa edwken autoij

III. kai pasin labwn edwken autoij

IV. labwn ta epiloipa edwken autoij

Perhaps there are even more variants. Why all the variants of this passage? One can only speculate. In any case, it is an interesting question.

A. J. Fecko

| Home Page | Table of Contents |

Thank you for visiting all-creatures.org.
Since