NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
In Luke chapter fourteen, verses sixteen through twenty-four, Jesus speaks to the crowds about the parable of? The Marriage Feast. ? The parable itself begins with a certain man who gives a great supper and extends his invitation to the rich and well to do. However, those invited begin to make excuses. One had bought a piece of ground and said he must go see it. Another had bought five yoke of oxen and wanted to test them.
A third said he had just gotten married and could not come. The master, being angry, sends his servants to go out and invite others. At first the poor, maimed, lame and blind are invited and arrive in the man? s house.
There is still room left in the mans house so the servants are sent out again to invite those among the bushes of the roads and sideways to come. Those invited who made excuses would not eat his supper that he had prepared. I believe this invitation to the banquet is symbolical of the invitation to eternal life through the gospel message. Jesus uses the figure of the banquet to illustrate the " feast? in the kingdom of God were people will come from all over to take their places at the feast of eternal life with God. Two scholarly interpretations of this parable are described below.
Wilfrid J. Harrington argues in his book, A Key to the Parables, that? The Great Feast? is used as a metaphor in Luke? s gospel.
According to Harrington the point of the parable is the refusal of the wealthy guests that were invited and the replacement of them by the poor and lame. Those that are within the city are the sinners. These consist of the scribes and Pharisees who are like the guests who received the invitation and did not accept it. The invitation to those outside the city refers to the Gentiles. Harington believes that this is to show how God has called the poor and outcasts and has offered them the salvation that the scribes and Pharisees had rejected. Harrington also agrees that the two stories of?
The Great Feast? are basically the same in Matthew? s and in Luke? s Gospels. Both Luke and Matthew both give a warning to the scribes and Pharisees that their place in heaven is going to be given up to others, namely the blind, poor and lame. One of the differences in Matthew is the added detail that Luke does not contain.
In Matthew there is a king that has prepared the great feast for his son. The servants sent out to invite theses people are the servants are beaten and some are killed. The king became furious at this and destroys the city. In Matthew the king is God.
The wedding feast is a messianic blessedness. The king? s son is the Messiah, and the messengers are the prophets and the Apostles. The guests who ignored the invitation and maltreated the servants are the Jews. The burned city is Jerusalem and those who are called are the pagans. Another interpreter, Frederick How Borsch, argues in his book, Many Things in Parables, that Luke?
s version of the parable can be described as more secular, for it does not have many of the details that Matthew uses for his salvation-history allegory. Borsch describes how the eating together was a way of establishing community, offering hospitality, and building trust and friendship in that era. The actions of inviting people to a meal and accepting the invitation were full of significance of the general hospitality that was known in that era. Borsch explains how the most important part of the parable is the context.
He goes on to explain how the context advises readers to invite the poor, maimed, lame, and blind to their dinners rather than friends, relatives, and the wealthy. Borsch is telling that true charity and hospitality was known in Judaism in that time. They did not invite people based on receiving a favor in return. It was based on the true charity that was and still is imbedded in their culture. Borsch tells how Luke shows that the intended guests were individuals of wealth.
Only after this plan fails is the poor, lame, and blind invited. It is anger rather than charity that provides the host? s motivation. The banquet parable provides a defense by suggesting that it is the outcasts who are to participate in the age to come.
Borsch believes that Luke? s parable seems more interested in those who are finally included than the guests who refuse to come. Borsch? s article tells of the double summoning of guests to fill the banquet hall.
The first group that the servants were sent out to get were the people of the streets and lanes of the city. These people represent the Jews. The second group that the servants were sent out to get were those from the highways and the hedges. These people represent the Gentiles.
Borsch also argues another way of interpreting these people. He says that those from the city are primarily the outcast among the Jews who accepted Jesus rather than the Jews generally, since the original invitees represent Jews more generally would probably better. Luke? s primary concern is with charity towards the outcasts and uses the parable as a warning against worldly concerns that lead one to miss what is far more important. Borsch explains the Jesus? healing ministry and his reaching out to and associating with the sick, maimed, and poor were ways of making the coming of the kingdom known.
The parable concludes in high and holy humor, offering new hope to all whom might otherwise feel uninvited to the party. Both Harrington and Borsch offer explanations of the different groups of people that are called to feast. However both authors have different opinions on how these people would be interpreted. Harrington believes that those that are within the city are the sinners who are like the guests who received the invitation and did not accept it. The invitation to those outside the city refers to the Gentiles. Borsch believes that those from the city are primarily the outcast who accepted Jesus and the original invitees represent the Jews.
Borsch? s view on the parable is based on charity and its place in Judaism at that time. Harrington? s view on the parable is based on how God has called the poor and outcasts and offered them the salvation that the scribes and Pharisees had rejected. Harrington also describes the differences between Matthews? s version of the parable and Luke?
s version, while Borsch main focus is on Luke? s version. Both of these authors display strong opinions to their interpretations of this parable. While both offer different interpretations of the groups that are invited to the feast, they still have the strong underlying theme of the feast of salvation that everyone is called to, including the poor and lame.
Harrington uses higher-level language but does not offer as an in depth analysis as Borsch? s analysis. Borsch offers a more in depth analysis of Luke? s gospel but he does not offer the dual interpretation of the parable from both Matthew? s and Luke? s gospels.
In conclusion these two authors represent two different interpretations of one parable, yet they still have the same underlying theme of the everlasting feast of salvation that one can acquire...
Free research essays on topics related to: view, version, luke , eternal life, underlying theme
Research essay sample on Luke Underlying Theme
