Luke 17:37 (Eagles and the Body)

[dmar198]

Are you suggesting that we interpret Sacred Scripture the way Protestants do ?

He didn’t say we should interpret the Bible like Protestants, he said Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the Aramaic word might include the meaning of vultures. There’s nothing Protestant about such a remark.

Completely devoid of the context from which it came, the tradition of the Church ?

He didn’t say to ignore the either context or Tradition. He didn’t even say the Greek is incorrect. He just said the Aramaic word might include the meaning of vultures. Catholic tradition doesn’t deny that in any place that I’m aware.

Is it not possible that the early church fathers, not to mention those who translated Jesus words into Greek - possibly we are talking about St. Matthew himself - had some insights into what Jesus was talking about ?

Yes, and he didn’t deny that. He simply said that the Aramaic word might have included the meaning of vultures. I’m not aware of any place where the Church Fathers, or St. Matthew, or any ancient translator said anything contrary. Are you?

 

[BartholomewB]

He didn’t say we should interpret the Bible like Protestants, he said Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the Aramaic word might include the meaning of vultures. There’s nothing Protestant about such a remark. He didn’t say to ignore the either context or Tradition. He didn’t even say the Greek is incorrect. He just said the Aramaic word might include the meaning of vultures. Catholic tradition doesn’t deny that in any place that I’m aware. Yes, and he didn’t deny that. He simply said that the Aramaic word might have included the meaning of vultures. I’m not aware of any place where the Church Fathers, or St. Matthew, or any ancient translator said anything contrary. Are you?

Thank you, **Dmar! **You have put yourself to a great deal of trouble on my behalf, and I’m indebted to you.

You’ve said a lot more, in fact, than I was going to say myself – which I will now put in a separate post addressed to **JohnR77, **as soon as I can get it written. It won’t take long.

Regards
Bart

 

[BartholomewB]

Are you suggesting that we interpret Sacred Scripture the way Protestants do ?
Completely devoid of the context from which it came, the tradition of the Church ?

Is it not possible that the early church fathers, not to mention those who translated Jesus words into Greek - possibly we are talking about St. Matthew himself - had some insights into what Jesus was talking about ?

Just asking ?.

JohnR77

Whatever gave you the erroneous idea that this is a Catholic vs. Protestant dispute? Look no further than the Jerusalem Bible:

*24:28 Wherever the corpse is, there will the vultures gather.

17:37 The disciples interrupted. ‘Where, Lord?’ they asked. He said, ‘Where the body is, there too will the vultures gather’.*

seraphim.my/bible/jb/JB-NT01%20MATTHEW.htm

seraphim.my/bible/jb/JB-NT03%20LUKE.htm

 

[JohnR77]

He didn’t say we should interpret the Bible like Protestants, he said Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the Aramaic word might include the meaning of vultures. There’s nothing Protestant about such a remark. He didn’t say to ignore the either context or Tradition. He didn’t even say the Greek is incorrect. He just said the Aramaic word might include the meaning of vultures. Catholic tradition doesn’t deny that in any place that I’m aware.

Dmar, Thanks for noting the obvious. I never said that he did say so those things.

It was only when his words were translated into Greek that the need arose to opt for one bird species and reject the other.

.

(with my emphasis in red)

To be precise we have to admit the possibility that Jesus conveyed a meaning that St. Matthew the Apostle understood as to whether the Mass was being referred to in this passage and that played some role in both Matthew and Luke’s Greek…

. He simply said that the Aramaic word might have included the meaning of vultures. I’m not aware of any place where the Church Fathers, or St. Matthew, or any ancient translator said anything contrary. Are you?

Sacred Scripture is often polyvalent. When it comes to metaphors even more so. While vultures could possibly on an outside chance have a secondary application the evidence from the Fathers clearly points to a primary, and possibly only meaning that is provided in the links I gave above.

 

[mikekle]

Yes, the Ignatius Study Bible also notes that the image of the body is symbolic of Jerusalem being surrounded and besieged. For the note on Mattew 24:28 "Scavengers (Romans) who eat the remains of a carcass (Jerusalem.) It is noteworthy that Roman military standards featured eagles as symbols of the empire. In the Old Testament, the eagle (also translated “vulture”) symbolized pagan nations who brought suffering upon Israel (Deut 28:49; Hab 1:8; cf. His 8:1).

Thats what I was thinking upon reading this, I also remember some verses mentioning certain nations using animals, Russia is the bear, England/Europe is the lion, Germany is the Leopard, etc and I know one verse speaks of the ‘eagle’ born from the lion, implying the US, since we originally came from England…is this the wrong road to go down in this instance?

 

[dmar198]

Dmar, Thanks for noting the obvious. I never said that he did say so those things.

And I, um, never said that you said, um, that he said that.

To be precise we have to admit the possibility that Jesus conveyed a meaning that St. Matthew the Apostle understood as to whether the Mass was being referred to in this passage and that played some role in both Matthew and Luke’s Greek.

Yes, that sounds wise.

Sacred Scripture is often polyvalent. When it comes to metaphors even more so. While vultures could possibly on an outside chance have a secondary application

This sounds like agreement.

the evidence from the Fathers clearly points to a primary, and possibly only meaning that is provided in the links I gave above.

Perhaps this could be helpful, from the Haydock Bible:

“[This] enigmatical answer…seems to mean, that where-ever there are guilty Jews, there shall their enemies pursue them and find them out, not only in Jerusalem, but in all the cities of Judea, Galilee, &c. every where the vengeance of the Lord shall follow them, and overtake them.” source

And: “This seems to have been a proverb or common saying among the Jews. Several of the ancient interpreters, by this body, understand Christ himself, who died for us; and they tell us, that at his second coming the angels and saints, like eagles, with incredible swiftness, will join him at the place of judgment. (Witham) — When he shall come to judgment, all, as it were by a natural instinct, shall fly to meet him, and receive their judgment. St. Hilary understands this literally; that where his body shall hang upon the cross, there will he appear in judgment, i.e. near the valley of Josaphat; in which place the prophet Joel (chap. iii. ver. 2,) declares, that the general judgment shall take place. (Tirinus)” source

As for myself, I think the literal meaning could be that scavengers will gather over dead bodies, and this is expressed poetically or proverbially. If I’m reading the Fathers correctly who have been cited in this thread, the meanings they have given to this passage so far have been examples of the spiritual sense.

 

[TimothyH]

Yes, the Ignatius Study Bible also notes that the image of the body is symbolic of Jerusalem being surrounded and besieged. For the note on Mattew 24:28 "Scavengers (Romans) who eat the remains of a carcass (Jerusalem.) It is noteworthy that Roman military standards featured eagles as symbols of the empire. In the Old Testament, the eagle (also translated “vulture”) symbolized pagan nations who brought suffering upon Israel (Deut 28:49; Hab 1:8; cf. His 8:1).

Thank you for the verse references.

 

[steve53]

Luke 17 is Luke’s version of the Olivette Discourse from Matthew 24.

Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together. (Matthew 24:28)

And they said to him, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together.” (Luke 17:37)

Both versions of the discourse are about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the ending of Temple worship and the transfer of divine authority from the Chief Priests of the Old Covenant to Peter and the Apostles under the New Covenant.

Roman soldiers set up a military standard in the Holy of Holies in the Temple just prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, Each roman legion had a unique military standard and many depicted birds or other animals.

http://www.bible-history.com/sketches/ancient/roman-standards.jpg

This military standard was the desolating sacrilege mentioned in Jesus’ discourse about the destruction of Jerusalem. The future emperor Titus was in charge of the military operation against Jerusalem and his arch in Rome depicts him being carried to Heaven on an eagle. Right next to it is a relief of the soliders carrying booty from the temple.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sour...wci3vasp6bFaBkRaw5N6yAPw&ust=1447630290594480

http://www.bible-history.com/archaeology/rome/arch_of_titus_menorah-copy.jpg

Proper interpretation of the Bible starts with the Literal Sense of Scripture - how would the words written have been understood by the people who read them at the time they were written. The literal sense of both discourses is the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.

Jesus was preparing is disciples and apostles for the events to come and ultimately for the transfer of power to Peter and the Apostles.

-Tim-

FWIW the final assault on the walled Inner Sanctuary of the Second Temple was made by hand picked troops in a semi-guerilla action who from all the evidence were not bothering to carry a standard. Titus and the army had already taken over the 15 acre outer tiled courtyard and turned it into camp. That’s likely where all the war paraphernalia was kept.

The successful assault soon got out of control with the Temple building itself looted and catching fire. It burned to the ground despite Titus’ explicit order to preserve it.

I doubt anyone bothered to carry a standard into the most holy room of it.

Eagles, BTW, were used as symbols by countless armies and nations/tribes throughout human history- not exclusive to Rome at all.

 

[GEddie]

FWIW the final assault on the walled Inner Sanctuary of the Second Temple was made by hand picked troops in a semi-guerilla action who from all the evidence were not bothering to carry a standard. Titus and the army had already taken over the 15 acre outer tiled courtyard and turned it into camp. That’s likely where all the war paraphernalia was kept.

The successful assault soon got out of control with the Temple building itself looted and catching fire. It burned to the ground despite Titus’ explicit order to preserve it.

I doubt anyone bothered to carry a standard into the most holy room of it.

Eagles, BTW, were used as symbols by countless armies and nations/tribes throughout human history- not exclusive to Rome at all.

Although not exclusive to Rome, it was the Roman eagle that forced its way where our LORD’s human body lay, and the same generation would see both.

The Babylonians (if they had an eagle) had been and gone. The American eagle would not fly for eighty generations.

But the Roman Eagles were already in sight of the same eyes who saw our LORD.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[BartholomewB]

I should add that nesharim is the Hebrew word. I don’t know what the Aramaic word was, and if anybody here can tell me, I’ll be grateful. I’m simply assuming that, like Hebrew, Aramaic too has only a single word for both birds.

That’s what I wrote yesterday. I’ve just been doing some googling and it seems – though no two sources are in full agreement – that in this case Aramaic and Hebrew are very close to one another.

Hebrew: nesher (sing.), nesharim (plur.)
Aramaic: neshra (sing.), neshrain (plur.)

Once again, if anyone seeing this can point out a mistake and correct me, I will be grateful.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

I’ve no doubt that when Jesus is saying those things He meant all the aforegoing (perhaps stressing different aspects on different occasions). A reference to eagles in place of vultures is probably intended to surprise.

Brilliant thread - thanks everybody!

 

[Mordocai]

Thats what I was thinking upon reading this, I also remember some verses mentioning certain nations using animals, Russia is the bear, England/Europe is the lion, Germany is the Leopard, etc and I know one verse speaks of the ‘eagle’ born from the lion, implying the US, since we originally came from England…is this the wrong road to go down in this instance?

Mikekle,

Here are some thoughts: Those animal symbols for various nations were given many years after the Scripture had been written. So, we can’t say that Revelation, or this or that book, if it mentions a Bear or Leopard or Eagle is referring to a certain country which would eventually form centuries later.

But, when Jesus uses the term eagle to refer to a country that already was formed (in this case, the Roman Empire) or when Revelation uses certain imagery to refer to entities already in existence at the time then we are safe in our interpretation.

There is a term for trying to pull out of the Scripture it’s proper meaning; exegesis.
There is a term for putting into the Scripture a certain meaning; eisigesis

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis

So when certain commentators will suggest that, for example, in revelation the Bear is Russia or the Eagle is America or what have you that is an example of an improper eisegesis. It is putting into the Scripture a meaning which is, in fact, not there.

I hope that helps. Any thoughts from anyone else?

Mordecai

 

[sudy]

Excuse me for interrupting but I picked up two bibles to look at this verse and in both instances it states vultures, so I have just checked on the vatican website and again it states the same thing “Where the body is, there also the vultures will gather.” vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PX0.HTM

I have just now had a look at biblehub and the majority of translations show vultures too. biblehub.com/luke/17-37.htm

I understood the earlier statement that the Aramaic and Hebrew words are the same for either bird while Greek has separate words. My question is, wasn’t the Gospel of Luke written in Greek originally?

 

[BartholomewB]

Excuse me for interrupting but I picked up two bibles to look at this verse and in both instances it states vultures, so I have just checked on the vatican website and again it states the same thing “Where the body is, there also the vultures will gather.” vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PX0.HTM

I have just now had a look at biblehub and the majority of translations show vultures too. biblehub.com/luke/17-37.htm

I understood the earlier statement that the Aramaic and Hebrew words are the same for either bird while Greek has separate words. My question is, wasn’t the Gospel of Luke written in Greek originally?

My point exactly. As I said in an earlier post on this thread, Jesus was speaking in a language which has only a single word for both eagle and vulture. He was linguistically free to see the nesharim (Hebrew) or *neshrain *(Aramaic) on the Roman standards as vultures, if he chose to. It was only when his words were translated into Greek that the need arose to opt for one bird species and reject the other.

There is really no conflict, I think, between seeing this saying as a reference to the Roman eagles (standards) swooping on their prey (Judea) and also, at the same time, in the traditional Catholic interpretation of Jesus gathering the elect around himself (1 Thess. 4:17). The saying can be read in both ways at once, can’t it?

 

[rcwitness]

The saying can be read in both ways at once, can’t it?

I really don’t know what to think about the two meanings.

What seems to be important is that the disciples asked Jesus, “Where Lord?”

His answer is directly related to their question. And what specifically were they asking about? If we take the nearest reference to what Jesus said just before their question “Where?”, then it would be:

“There will be two women grinding together; one will be taken and the other left.”

Were the disciples asking where they would be taken???

In any case, I think the answer to the meaning of Jesus’ response needs to know what the disciples were specifically asking.

 

[Bran_Stark]

It seems there are two approaches to interpreting this. Are the eagles His Saints, or His persecutors?

Well, perhaps they aren’t specifically meant to be either. My NRSV study Bible just has this note for Matt. 24: 28, “This grisly proverb emphasizes that the coming of the Son of Man will be obvious to all.”

 

[rcwitness]

Well, perhaps they aren’t specifically meant to be either. My NRSV study Bible just has this note for Matt. 24: 28, “This grisly proverb emphasizes that the coming of the Son of Man will be obvious to all.”

Hey Bran, I wouldn’t argue that there is truth in that observation. Neither do I think that either of the interpretations talked about in this thread regarding Luke 17:37 is dealing with that.

What do you believe the disciple were asking specifically, and what did Jesus’ answer, about the body and eagles, mean?

 

[steve53]

I view Luke 17:37 akin to Jesus’ famous “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” saying.

 

[JohnR77]

JohnR77

Whatever gave you the erroneous idea that this is a Catholic vs. Protestant dispute? Look no further than the Jerusalem Bible:

24:28 Wherever the corpse is, there will the vultures gather.

17:37 The disciples interrupted. ‘Where, Lord?’ they asked. He said, ‘Where the body is, there too will the vultures gather’.

seraphim.my/bible/jb/JB-NT01%20MATTHEW.htm

seraphim.my/bible/jb/JB-NT03%20LUKE.htm

BartholomewB, you seem to misunderstand what I was alluding too. We disagree as to who has made a mistake, but my explanation will take some time that I do not presently have.

I really don’t know what to think about the two meanings.

What seems to be important is that the disciples asked Jesus, “Where Lord?”

His answer is directly related to their question. And what specifically were they asking about? If we take the nearest reference to what Jesus said just before their question “Where?”, then it would be:

  "There will be two women grinding together; one will be taken and the other left."

Were the disciples asking where they would be taken???

In any case, I think the answer to the meaning of Jesus’ response needs to know what the disciples were specifically asking.

I think your question is right on target. Although, it could be debated as to who being saved, the one being taken, or the one being left (as in not being taken away by the flood as in Noah’s day.)

But the question is, as you state, where will the saved person find himself ?

The answer to this question for Luke’s Gospel, is the same answer to the question in the parallel verse in Matthew’s Gospel as to where to we find the Lord on the Day of Judgement ?

The answer is the Lamb’s Supper, the Mass.
See the context section of my post
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13438524&postcount=17

and the information and links following at the end of that post.

.