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

culture. 12
The first invitation is to let people know about the event and seeks an initial
acceptance, the second tells the invited guests that it is ready and they should come to the
banquet. In view of the host’s earnest preparation and desire for the guests, refusal would be a
terribly discourteous behaviour.
According to v. 16, there are many persons invited to the banquet. Of them only three
excuses, as typical instances, are given in vv. 18-20. It is not easy to determine whether the
parable follows a principle of oral storytelling in Jewish folklore that repeats the basic pattern
13
with almost predictable regularity, over two or three times. In any event, what is clear here
is that the same pattern is repeated in the three excuses, although the third excuse diverges
from the same pattern because of the omission of the second element in the pattern. 14 The
first excuse is related to the inspection of a recently acquired field. The second excuse is
connected with the test of the recently purchased five pairs of oxen. And the third excuse
relates to recent marriage. With respect to these excuses, Derrett and Paul Ballard suggest that
the excuses in the parable came not only from the exemptions for Holy War listed in Deut.
20:5-7 and 24:5, but also a midrash on Targum Zeph. 1.7-18. 15 An excuse for not attending
war, though, is not consistent with the excuses not to attend a dinner party of the parable. Or
rather, the military language is in Matthew. 16
All the three excuses are flat refusals to come to the prepared banquet, and are flimsy in
17
nature.
The excuses present a lack of interest in the banquet rather than a paucity of
persuasion. In this regard, Jesus would want to point out that with the same feeble excuses,
people are in the same way expressing their indifference to God’s invitation to the kingdom
12. See Philo, Opif. Mund. 78; Lam. Rab. 4.2; Apuleius, Metamorphoses 3.12; Esth 5:8; 6:14; Sir 13:9; Plutarch,
Mor. 511D-E.
13. B.W. Longenecker, “A Humorous Jesus? Orality, Structure and Characterisation in Luke 14:15-24, and
Beyond,” BibInt 16 (2008), 179-204, here 186-87. For a concrete instance, see H. Schwartz, Elijah’s Violin and
Other Jewish Folktales (New York: Penguin, 1987). In terms of this pattern, the parable of Good Samaritan and
the parable of the talents belong to the 2+1 pattern and the parable of the sower, the 3+3 pattern.
14. Longenecker, “A Humorous Jesus? Orality, Structure and Characterisation in Luke 14:15-24, and Beyond,”
188. Even Linnemann rejects the third excuse as secondary because of the difference in form. Linnemann,
Parables of Jesus, 89-90.
15. See Derrett, “The Parable of the Great Supper,” In Law in the New Testament (London: Darton, Longman &
Todd, 1970), 126-55; P.H. Ballard, “Reasons for Refusing the Great Supper,” JTS 23 (1972), 341-50.
16. H. Palmer, “Just Married Cannot Come,” NovT 18 (1976), 241-57. It is also not probable that the parable
alludes to Deuteronomy to highlight the urgency of the present situation. See Donahue, The Gospel in Parable,
142.
17. Bailey expounds that in the Middle East one never buys land and oxen without thoroughly inspecting or
testing them before purchasing them. Bailey, Through Peasant Eyes: More Lucan Parables, Their Culture and
Style, 95-98.
57