the role of the lukan parables in terms of the purpose of luke's gospel
the role of the lukan parables in terms of the purpose of luke's gospel the role of the lukan parables in terms of the purpose of luke's gospel
outside the story. Depending on who here addresses the statement, the opinions are divided into two at least. If the pronouncement in v. 24 is an address of the host, it then conveys no strong threat to the audience of Jesus, nor to those in the banquet who have snubbed him. On the other hand, Jeremias who sanctions the above opinion argues that it could take a sense only in the occasion of addressing it to the excluded Jew from the eschatological banquet. 24 Of course, as Linnemann claims, it may be that the master “steps as it were on to the apron of the stage and addresses the audience” as rhetorical device. 25 It is, however, most likely that Jesus would have addressed the pronouncement 26 are very significant. 5-3. The Interpretation of the Parable and if so, the Christological implications On the grounds of Greco-Roman literary and culture, Braun views the parable as the story retold by Luke about the conversion of the host. The host gives a dinner to the wealthy urban elite, namely the prosperous stratum in a quest for honour, but when his invitation is declined to damage his reputation and honour, he discards the whole system of valuation on the basis of honour and shame and transfers his social life to a different group. Given this view, for him the parable is directed at the rich in Luke’s church who are reluctant to hang around with the 27 poor in the church in order to maintain their social status. To focus on the change of the host is a distortion of the parable in that he fails to consider the eschatological context and the emphasis on election language, and in that I cannot find out any allusion in the parable that the host gave the banquet in a quest for honour. Viewing the banquet in the parable as the eschatological banquet, the parable then serves to emphasize the presence of the kingdom in the ministry of Jesus, in particular by Him eating with sinners and tax-collectors. It is meant that the eschatological banquet is already ready, and not only a future event like the anonymous guest thought in v. 15. ‘Come now, God has certainly rejected Israel. For more detailed contradiction, see Victor E. Vine, “Luke 14:15-24 and Anti- Semitism,” ExpTim 102 (1991), 262-63. 24. Jeremias, Parables, 171. 25. Linnemann, Parables of Jesus, 90. 26. Bailey, Through Peasant Eyes: More Lucan Parables, Their Culture and Style, 109. 27. Braun, Feasting and Social Rhetoric in Luke 14, 64, 84-85, 127-31. For the same view, see Richard L. Rohrbaugh, “The Pre-Industrial City in Luke-Act: Urban Social Relations,” in ed., Jerome H. Neyrey, The Social World of Luke-Acts (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 137-47; Schottroff, The Parable of Jesus, 204-9. Scott also argues that the parable reverses and subverts the system of honour, since the host who gave the banquet loses his honour and joins the poor, unlike the expectation of audience to the messianic banquet that those who have suffered at the hands of Israel's enemies will be restored to honour by the power of God. Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 173-74. 59
ecause it is ready.’ People should be responding eagerly to the summons, but they are too busy with their mundane affairs. Any excuse is inappropriate as a reason why they cannot come to the eschatological banquet when one faces the kingdom. On the other hand, the parable destroys the assumption that they as God’s elect would be at the messianic banquet as one’s own right. The parable also provides an unexpected answer against the conviction of the anonymous guest in v. 15 that he would be at the messianic banquet. It is also closely associated with 13:28-30, 34. The parable is showing the needs of human response with divine initiative, allowing people to exercise their free choice. In any case, the parable functions as a challenge and warning with regard to the presence of the kingdom and the contemporary predominant understanding of election. 28 The parable also shows not only God’s concern for outcasts, but functions as an introduction of discipleship that follows in 14:25-34, warning about the danger of wealth and possessions and family ties as an obstacle to discipleship, making the point that there is no more important thing in the world than attending the kingdom banquet. 28. This thought of election in the parable contrasts not only with the attitude of the Jewish religious authorities, but also with the standpoint of the Qumran community in that they forbade the disabled to attend the community meals, such as the lame, paralyzed, deaf, or blind person (1QM 7,4-6; 1QSa 2,6-10). See J.A. Sanders, “The Ethic of Election in Luke’s Great Banquet Parable,” in ed., James L. Crenshaw and John T. Willis, Essays in Old Testament Ethics (New York: Ktav, 1974), 247 -71, especially 261-263 60
- Page 17 and 18: parables, the soliloquies function
- Page 19 and 20: links between the parables and thei
- Page 21 and 22: Peasant and The Oriental Versions.
- Page 23 and 24: Greg W. Forbes 59 sets out not only
- Page 25 and 26: Chapter 3 A Methodological basis fo
- Page 27 and 28: those of the evangelists. “There
- Page 29 and 30: estore their power and sense of dra
- Page 31 and 32: Secondly, irrespective of how the p
- Page 33 and 34: of the framing structure and in the
- Page 35 and 36: Part II An Analysis of the Lukan Pa
- Page 37 and 38: sever relations with the preceding
- Page 39 and 40: of neighbour, the lawyer would beli
- Page 41 and 42: the Samaritans clearly appears not
- Page 43 and 44: the kingdom breaks abruptly into on
- Page 45 and 46: 2. The Friend at Midnight (11:5-8)
- Page 47 and 48: With respect to v. 8 there are thre
- Page 49 and 50: (the petitioner) The noun , there
- Page 51 and 52: although he knows that it is second
- Page 53 and 54: The rich man in the parable intends
- Page 55 and 56: the parable. V. 21 is a repetition
- Page 57 and 58: either pointing to the meaning of t
- Page 59 and 60: ear fruit (Lev 19:23), 14 whereas B
- Page 61 and 62: parable, namely the three years and
- Page 63 and 64: 5. The Great Banquet (14: 15-24) 5-
- Page 65 and 66: symposia give the background for un
- Page 67: through Jesus’ ministry. Furtherm
- Page 71 and 72: In addition to Kilgallen’s view,
- Page 73 and 74: and maintaining sociability and the
- Page 75 and 76: version in the Gospel of Truth may
- Page 77 and 78: shoulders may be commonplace from a
- Page 79 and 80: imagination and are unconvincing. I
- Page 81 and 82: 6-3-1. The Analysis of the Parable
- Page 83 and 84: woman is simply compared to the ang
- Page 85 and 86: With respect to the authenticity of
- Page 87 and 88: and Scott contend that the practice
- Page 89 and 90: distance from them is not merely ge
- Page 91 and 92: 20:12), as I have pointed out, the
- Page 93 and 94: iniquity, rather than seeking to fi
- Page 95 and 96: . 127 The father leaves the decisio
- Page 97 and 98: the younger son here represents the
- Page 99 and 100: giving too much to his children. 14
- Page 101 and 102: 7. The Parable of the Unjust Stewar
- Page 103 and 104: simply the house. Moreover, it is m
- Page 105 and 106: kingdom of God, a new epoch has ope
- Page 107 and 108: might be an exception to the rule o
- Page 109 and 110: means to give the steward time for
- Page 111 and 112: contends Derrect, is that it is an
- Page 113 and 114: econsider and re-evaluate their und
- Page 115 and 116: prohibition of usury might have had
- Page 117 and 118: followers are strongly encouraged t
ecause it is ready.’ People should be respond<strong>in</strong>g eagerly to <strong>the</strong> summons, but <strong>the</strong>y are too<br />
busy with <strong>the</strong>ir mundane affairs. Any excuse is <strong>in</strong>appropriate as a reason why <strong>the</strong>y cannot<br />
come to <strong>the</strong> eschatological banquet when one faces <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>gdom. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, <strong>the</strong><br />
parable destroys <strong>the</strong> assumption that <strong>the</strong>y as God’s elect would be at <strong>the</strong> messianic banquet as<br />
one’s own right. The parable also provides an unexpected answer aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> conviction <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> anonymous guest <strong>in</strong> v. 15 that he would be at <strong>the</strong> messianic banquet. It is also closely<br />
associated with 13:28-30, 34. The parable is show<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> needs <strong>of</strong> human response with<br />
div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>itiative, allow<strong>in</strong>g people to exercise <strong>the</strong>ir free choice. In any case, <strong>the</strong> parable<br />
functions as a challenge and warn<strong>in</strong>g with regard to <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>gdom and <strong>the</strong><br />
contemporary predom<strong>in</strong>ant understand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> election. 28<br />
The parable also shows not only God’s concern for outcasts, but functions as an<br />
<strong>in</strong>troduction <strong>of</strong> discipleship that follows <strong>in</strong> 14:25-34, warn<strong>in</strong>g about <strong>the</strong> danger <strong>of</strong> wealth and<br />
possessions and family ties as an obstacle to discipleship, mak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t that <strong>the</strong>re is no<br />
more important th<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> world than attend<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>gdom banquet.<br />
28. This thought <strong>of</strong> election <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> parable contrasts not only with <strong>the</strong> attitude <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Jewish religious authorities,<br />
but also with <strong>the</strong> standpo<strong>in</strong>t <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Qumran community <strong>in</strong> that <strong>the</strong>y forbade <strong>the</strong> disabled to attend <strong>the</strong> community<br />
meals, such as <strong>the</strong> lame, paralyzed, deaf, or bl<strong>in</strong>d person (1QM 7,4-6; 1QSa 2,6-10). See J.A. Sanders, “The<br />
Ethic <strong>of</strong> Election <strong>in</strong> Luke’s Great Banquet Parable,” <strong>in</strong> ed., James L. Crenshaw and John T. Willis, Essays <strong>in</strong> Old<br />
Testament Ethics (New York: Ktav, 1974), 247 -71, especially 261-263<br />
60
Change language