the role of the lukan parables in terms of the purpose of luke's gospel

5. The Great Banquet (14: 15-24)
5-1. The Literary Context of the Parable
The Great Banquet appears in a dining scene in the house of one of the Pharisees. The setting
in 14:1 also provides a stage for the following stories: The healing and teaching about the
Sabbath (14:1-6), a lesson to the guests regarding places of honour (14:7-11), and a lesson to
the host about the proper choice of guests (14:12-14). 14:1-24 has, therefore, literary unity in
the setting of 14:1. All its sub-units except for the Sabbath story (14:1-6) are dinner episodes
which has dinners, hosts, guests and action surrounding the table. 1
The parable also parallels
13:22-34, which challenges misconceptions about election held by Jesus’ contemporaries.
13:28-29 in particular functions to some extent as an introduction to these banqueting sayings,
and 13:34 anticipates the refusals of those who do not come to the banquet in the parable.
The parable of the Great Banquet has some affinities with the parable of the Wedding
Banquet in the Gospel of Matthew (22:1-14) and logion 64 of the Gospel of Thomas, though
there are many conspicuous differences among them too. In Matthew, the host is a king who
gives a wedding banquet for his son, and in Luke the host is a man who gives a great banquet
for many persons. For Matthew there are several slaves who are sent twice to the invited
guests, whereas for Luke there is one servant who is sent once to the invited guests. After the
rejection of the invited guests, Matthew has servants sent to only one group, but in Luke, the
servant is sent first to the streets of the city and then to the highways outside. Furthermore,
only Matthew has the servants attacked and killed, and the destruction of the city follows, and
only in Matthew is a guest without a suitable garment sent into outer darkness. Conclusively,
the parable of the Wedding Banquet in Matthew focuses on obstinate rejection and judgment,
while the parable in Luke reflects concern for the outcast. Since there are similarities and
differences between the Matthean and Lukan versions, it raises the question of the source as
to whether the two versions are based on Q as common source, or on independent traditions. I
believe that it is most likely that they stem from independent traditions (M and L), due to
2 3
their many differences. If one takes the view that the parable derived from Q, one would
1. Willi Braun, Feasting and Social Rhetoric in Luke 14 (SNTSMS 85; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1995), 15.
2. A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Luke (ICC; New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1922), 359; Ellis, Luke, 194; H. Palmer, “Just Married Cannot Come,” NovT 18 (1976),
255; Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 93; B. Smith, The Parables of the Synoptic Gospels, 203; Jeremias,
Parables, 63; E. Linnemann, Parables of Jesus: Introduction and Interpretation, 166, Kistemaker, Parables,
198; Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 237; J.E. Breech, The Silence of Jesus: The Authentic Voice of the
Historical Man, 114-24; A.J. Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000),
54