The Messianic Vegan Banquet vs Two Non-Vegan Ones (Part I). By Dr Chapman Chen

Some critics argue that Jesus must have approved the killing of animals for food because two of his parables refer to slaughtered animals: the oxen and fattened cattle prepared for a royal banquet in Matthew 22:1–4, and the fattened calf killed to celebrate the return of the prodigal son in Luke 15:23. The first point to remember is that parables are teaching stories, not ethical manuals. They employ images familiar to the audience in order to convey a spiritual lesson. Jesus often used everyday cultural language to communicate spiritual truths. In a society where sacrificial meals and banquet feasts were familiar, references to meat dishes were simply incidental details that listeners could recognise. Equally importantly, the Messiah’s own wedding banquet is vegan (Isaiah 25:6; Song of Solomon 2:16; Hosea 2:19-20; Revelation 19:7-9, 21:2), a point which we will return to in Part II of this article.

 Full Text: https://www.vegantheology.net/post/the-messianic-vegan-banquet-vs-two-non-vegan-ones-part-i-by-dr-chapman-chen

The purpose of the royal banquet in Matthew 22 is not to teach dietary practice but to illustrate how people respond to God’s invitation to the Kingdom. In the parable, a king's initial guests reject his invitation to his son's wedding, treating the servants harshly. The king destroys them, and then invites everyone—good and bad—from the streets to fill the banquet. The banquet imagery represents the kingdom of God's inclusivity and judgment.

The Greek wording of Matthew 22:4 (ἰδοὺ τὸ ἄριστόν μου ἡτοίμακα, οἱ ταῦροί μου καὶ τὰ σιτιστὰ τεθυμένα “Behold, I have prepared my banquet; my oxen and fattened animals have been slaughtered.”) confirms that Jesus is describing the actions of a character within a story rather than issuing moral instruction. Three linguistic features are noteworthy here. First, the verb τεθυμένα (tethymena) is a perfect passive participle, meaning “have been slaughtered.” It simply describes a completed action in the narrative setting rather than an imperative command. Second, the term τὰ σιτιστά refers to fattened animals prepared for a banquet, a conventional expression in ancient descriptions of royal feasts. It functions as part of the imagery of abundance. Third, the narrative voice is the king in the parable, not Jesus.

Similarly, the purpose of the prodigal son parable is clear: it illustrates God’s joy when a lost sinner returns. The feast symbolises celebration and reconciliation. The slaughtered calf is merely part of the narrative imagery used to communicate joy.

Indeed, if every detail of a parable were treated as moral instruction, the result would be absurd. No reader assumes that: the unjust judge (Luke 18) endorses injustice; the dishonest manager (Luke 16) endorses fraud; the king burning cities (Matt. 22:7) endorses violence. Yet when animals appear in a parable, literalism suddenly emerges. This inconsistency misunderstands how parables function. Indeed, throughout history, overly literal readings of Scripture have produced distortions. The early church father Origen, in his De Principiis (Book IV, 8, 9, 18 https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm ), warned that if sacred texts were interpreted strictly according to the letter, one might wrongly attribute cruelty or injustice to God.