Dennis Smith, “Meal Customs (Greco-Roman),” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 4, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 651.
2 Smith, “Meal Customs,” 651–52.
_________ Chapter _________
Two
Interpreting the Parable
of the Great Banquet
One can interpret much of Scripture to accommodate a particular worldview or theological leaning. Instead of drawing out the intended meaning of a passage or teaching (the discipline of exegesis), some people make the mistake of reading into or imposing their own interpretation upon the text. I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t want to be right about what the Bible teaches. Yet we can’t always equate what we believe is “right” with what is actually correct. Interpreting Scripture is certainly not the same thing as reading, knowing, and even believing what it says. If our interpretation of Scripture is incorrect, the fact that we’ve read it will make little difference in our lives.
Have you ever listened to a song and wondered what the songwriter was really saying? Sometimes we hear certain lyrics incorrectly and therefore sing them as such. Some lyrics are so veiled and abstruse it’s almost impossible to decipher the song’s meaning. If you’re like me, you like to comprehend the true intent and message behind a songwriter’s lyrics. In fact, obscure and cryptic lyrics can actually devalue a song’s meaning and poignancy when they’re misinterpreted. Whether they’re spoken, written, or sung, words communicate something to us. The words we want to be absolutely certain we’re interpreting correctly are the ones authored by God in His Word!
Thankfully, interpreting Jesus’s parables isn’t quite as onerous a task as decoding certain song lyrics!
Although God speaks to be understood, some who heard Jesus failed to possess the necessary spiritual ears to grasp the truth He was disclosing. Hearing God’s Word is one thing; comprehending it is quite another! Fact is, understanding the theological meaning of Jesus’s parables can lead to much interpretative speculation.
Noted Interpretations of the Parable of the Great Banquet
As is the case with all of Jesus’s parables, there are numerous interpretations of the parable of the great banquet. The parable has been interpreted as reflecting the doctrine of election (in terms of God’s choosing of those whom He desires to save), as being a corrective rebuke on attitudes towards the rich and poor, and as being further justification for the continuation of the Great Commission and world missions in the church (to include the evangelization of Jews). The parable has also been interpreted as being an anti-Semitic statement by implying that Israel has been rejected by its God.3
Interpretation depends in part on where one perceives the parable to end. For example, if the parable of the great banquet ends at verse 21, then Luke’s familiar use of the reversal to announce the gospel is the format here: insiders are out and outsiders are in. If the parable proper extends through verse 23, then it is almost inevitable that one thinks of God’s offer first to the rejected and the marginal in Israel (on the streets of the city) and then to Gentiles (strangers on the outskirts of the city).4
Of importance to note is that Matthew and Luke render their feast-oriented parables differently in their respective Gospels. In Matthew’s account of the parable of the marriage banquet there are three sendings of servants to the original guests, two excuses offered for the refusal, along with one sending of the king’s army to destroy those who killed his servants, followed by the final sending of even more servants to the substitute invitees (see Matthew 22:1–14). By contrast, Luke has only one sending of a servant (singular) to the original guests and three excuses as to why they cannot attend the banquet, followed by two sendings to substitute guests.
In Matthew, the host is a king and the feast is specifically held in celebration of a wedding banquet for a son. Conversely, Luke’s host is a “certain man” who prepares a “great” banquet, not a wedding feast per se. Matthew’s account mentions the host-king’s inspection of a guest who was “not wearing wedding clothes,” who is subsequently bound and tossed out into the “darkness” (an expression depicting severe punishment). As well, Matthew’s parable of the wedding banquet concludes with the statement “For many are invited, but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:14). Luke, on the other hand, describes the substitute guests as being “the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame” (14:21). However, like Matthew, Luke also ends his recording of Jesus’s parable on an ominous tone: “I tell you, not one of those who were invited will get a taste of my banquet” (14:24).
What should we make of the similarities and differences between the two Gospel accounts of Jesus’s parables of the marriage banquet (in Matthew) and the great banquet (in Luke)?
When interpreting passages in the Gospels, it’s helpful to keep in mind that each author had his own particular kingdom agenda to communicate when writing and sought to present a particular facet of the Saviour.
If Matthew was mostly concerned with the quality of Israel’s religious leaders (for he placed the parable of the wedding banquet among a series of other parables dealing with that issue) and, by comparison, Luke was concerned with showcasing God’s inclusion of the downtrodden and Gentiles into His kingdom, as well as the state of the religious leadership within Israel (albeit not as directly), what common points exist between these fraternal-twin parables?
We can rest assured that the Gospel writers heard Jesus correctly on both occasions. The Lord chose the players and plotlines of His teaching stories intentionally, depending on the audience hearing His message and the corresponding point He strove to make to that particular audience.
The Lord appeared to have had two fundamental objectives in mind for teaching this specific parable of the great banquet when and where He did. First, there was erroneous teaching and popular beliefs about who was fit for the kingdom of heaven and who was not. That needed clarification. Secondly, Jesus’s parable seems to emphasize the point that the invitation to enter God’s kingdom, which was spurned by one group (the self-righteous and unbelieving Jews), has been freely extended to other groups of people who were thought to be ill-suited to inherit the blessing of heaven (the physically and spiritually destitute and every manner of Gentile). In the following chapters, we explore these objectives along with the spiritual and eternal ramifications inherent within Jesus’s parable of the great banquet in Luke 14, a parable that carries as much significance for the believer in Christ today as it does for the unsaved.
Reflective Questions
1. What is your personal method for studying the Bible so as to properly interpret and understand its content, teachings, and applications?
2. What are your thoughts on some of the noted interpretations of the parable of the great banquet?
3. Are there any other interpretations or applications of the parable you can come up with that align with the Bible’s teachings?
4. Which of the two feast/banquet-oriented parables (in Luke 14 and Matthew 22) is more effective for its teaching on the kingdom of God? If you say they are both effective, choose a few elements from each that stand out to you.
5. In your opinion, do most of the sermons you hear today contextualize the biblical content being taught (by mentioning the events of surrounding passages) and impart it in a way that connects the historical distance (original circumstances, cultural atmosphere) to the realities of the 21st century world and current-day issues affecting those who are listening?
3 See a brief refutation of this argument in Craig A. Evans, Luke, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1990), 227.