Compare Matthew’s parable of the wedding feast (Matthew 22:1-10) with Luke’s version of this same story (Luke 14:16-24). What differences do you notice between the two accounts, and how do these stories function in terms of Ralph’s categories of parable and/or allegory?
The main differences between these two parables are the commands and reactions of the king giving the feast. First, let’s start by saying that these stories function in terms of Ralph’s categories of parables by personally trying to challenge and teach the readers a lesson. Secondly, this is like an allegory in the characteristic that knowledge of the audience is not necessary in order for the reader to understand its meaning. In Luke, the story is preceded by a guest that says “‘Blessed is the one who will dine in the kingdom of God’” (Luke 14:15). Jesus goes on to explain how the individual guest has the free will to decide whether they wish to dine at the great feast. However, in Matthew, the guests are given two chances, two opportunities to accept Christ and yet they respond with weak excuses. In Luke, the servants are then sent out to seek the poor, crippled, and lame first, and then when there is more room, to gather anyone they can find. In Matthew, however, the fate of both the servants and guests are a bit more gruesome. The guests kill the servants and then the king, in rage, destroys their city and then invites anyone else his other servants can find.
The difference in the process of invitation comes in the intentionality of the guests. In Luke, the intention, at first, is for the friends, who then find excuses not to go. But then, the invitation extends to the lame, the poor, and the weak. Finally, everyone else is included to fill up the room and enjoy the merriment. This order of invitation does not happen, and Jesus’s intentionality when reaching out to the poor is overlooked in Matthew.
eflemin3 
I would certainly have to agree that the commands and reactions of the king is certainly the largest difference between the two. Having the servants killed vs. kept alive strikes me as an awfully big difference.
While the difference is very gruesome, this is a good example of why there is a need for multiple gospels in the Bible; to look at Christ’s life through different viewpoints. In this particular story, Luke captures Jesus’ message of outreach and acceptance better than Matthew does.
The fact that you can theoretically draw multiple comparisons between groups in the story and groups in the audience (e.g. the king as God, Jesus as the king’s son, those originally invited but found unworthy as God’s chosen people, the Israelites) suggests that Matthew’s version of the parable may not be functioning as a true parable anymore–but rather as an allegory. In contrast, Luke’s version makes one central comparison: The audience of this parable is compared to those in the story who were invited to the feast first but declined to attend, and you know the social context from the surrounding narrative. In other words, Luke’s version still works as a true parable.
It’s good to have comparisons between these two and have an understanding of different intentions of Matthew and Luke shown. The attitudes towards the non-chrstian and weak reflects Jesus’ authority and fairness respectively.
Pingback: Blog #5 Highlights | Foundations of Theology