Parable of the Feast

Theo1689

Well-known member
So the gospels contain two parables of feasts, Matt. 22 ("Parable of the Wedding Banquet"), and Luke 14 ("Parable of the Banquet"). They seem to be parallel accounts, although there are minor differences (one is identified as a wedding, the other isn't identified one way or the other.

Let's see if they are more consistent with Calvinism or Arminianism.


The First Invitation Attempt

Matt. 22:2 “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, 3 and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come.

We have a group who was originally invited. I assume it's referring to the Jews. "But they would not come." Invitation acceptance: ZERO percent.


The Second Invitation Attempt

Matt. 22:4 Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.”’ 5 But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, 6 while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. 7 The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

Now he has his servants really promoting the feast, encouraging everyone to come. Not only do they NOT come, but while some simply ignored them, others killed his servants.


The Final Invitation Attempt

Matt. 22:8 Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9 Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ 10 And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.

The final call was, "invite as many as you find". The term translated "invite" is actually, "kalew", which means to "call". At any rate, we know how the servants understood it because their response was to "gather all whom they found".

It's interesting that it says, "both bad and good", indicating that their invitation was not based on them "preparing" themselves, it was regardless of their behaviour, or in other words, "not by works" (Eph. 2:8-9, Tit. 3:5, 2 Tim. 1:9, Rom. 4:1-6, 11:5-6, etc. etc.)

(In fact, the last part of the parable is about someone who tries to sneak in with his own garment (his works), but is promptly ejected.)


Luke 14: The First Invitation Attempt

Luke 14:16 But he said to him, “A man once gave a great banquet and invited many. 17 And at the time for the banquet he sent his servant to say to those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’ 18 But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said to him, ‘I have bought a field, and I must go out and see it. Please have me excused.’ 19 And another said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to examine them. Please have me excused.’ 20 And another said, ‘I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.’

So again, a feast is prepared, and there were arleady individuals intended for invitation. Yet when the time came, everyone made any excuse not to attend. Nobody came.


The Second Invitation Attempt

Luke 14:21 So the servant came and reported these things to his master. Then the master of the house became angry and said to his servant, ‘Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and crippled and blind and lame.’ 22 And the servant said, ‘Sir, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.’

So now the master of the Feast "dumbs down" on the invitation list, and invites the poor, cripple, blind, and lame. And so they did, "and still there is room". This last comment is interestingly ambiguous, as it doesn't tell us how many of the "down-trodden" group actually came. It could have been a lot, it could have been a few, we don't know. But if we are to inform our opinion from the parallel passage in Matt. 22, it was zero again.


The Final Invitation Attempt

Luke 14:23 And the master said to the servant, ‘Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled. 24 For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet.’”

Unsatisfied still, the master finally instructs his servants to "compel" (ie. "force") them to come in. His banquet WILL be filled, no matter what. And wrath is left for those who were inveited but forsook it.


Summary

So when we combine both parables to inform our understanding, we get the following:

- the Master holds a banquet;
- at the first invitation, nobody came (total depravity)
- at the second invitation, nobody came (total depravity);
- at the final invitation, the guests were COMPELLED to come (irresistible grace);
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure they are that clearly defined
and not really in Calvinist or Arminian thinking

the first invite, and the second invite, would be to the same - those specifically invited
a first invite would say it will be happening sometime in the future (to covenant Israel)
a second invite done later would more specify the time (to covenant Israel, by the prophets)
those who initially say they would like to come (Israel at Sinai), later turn down the party (rejection of Messiah)

the opportunity then goes to the gentiles (not specifically invited by covenant)

any attending from either would need to be efficaciously called (Calvinisticy maybe, but it would really the correct Jewish thinking on Election)
any attending would need the proper dress (righteousness of Messiah)
 
...
Let's see if they are more consistent with Calvinism or Arminianism.
...

The First Invitation Attempt

Matt. 22:2 “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, 3 and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come.

We have a group who was originally invited. I assume it's referring to the Jews. "But they would not come." Invitation acceptance: ZERO percent.
...
"But they would not come"; that is not consistent with Calvinism. 'Would not' is more consistent with volition than with 'Could not.'
 
"But they would not come"; that is not consistent with Calvinism. 'Would not' is more consistent with volition than with 'Could not.'
Calvinists will say they would not because were inherently sinful, and chose the only thing their inherent sin nature would allow them to choose.
 
I said Calvinisticy, maybe...not Calvinistically
the Bible is not a Calvinist document and should not be read or taught as if it is

not all are efficaciously called to Faith tho
not all were elected for that relationship
I don't understand your position. It seems that on the one hand you're agreeing that Calvinism is not biblical, but on the other you're using Calvinistic phrases like "efficaciously called."

God wants everyone to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Pet 3:9).
 
I believe in election, but get told here I am not a "Calvinist"
which is fine by me
even tho sins are already forgiven since Messiah died, Sin nature prevents Belief and Trust IMO
so efficacious calling is necessary, as was election
God chooses who God's friends are
-

someone like John the Baptist of Israel is an OT saint and a friend of the Bridegroom
so he will be at the party (but not necessarily at the wedding itself, being two different events IMO)
not positive tho, just don't see him as part of the Bride
 
Last edited:
I believe in election
Do you believe people have a choice as to whether or not they are one of the "elect"?

As I understand it, a Calvinist would say no. God determines (or predetermined) who would be saved and who won't.
A "free-willer" would say yes. It is every person's choice as to whether they want to believe, or not.

I say yes.
 
do people chose to be one of the Elect?
I would say no

God did the choosing
God then blesses God's friends as God wants, in spite of themselves (like God's friend Abraham)
and
God gets all the glory

Salvation is not fair, it is Gracious

left to own devices, no one would chose God - not even one
I just don't buy L point, thinking Messiah was promised to all Mankind in Genesis 3 (Adamic covenant)
 
Last edited:
Do you believe people have a choice as to whether or not they are one of the "elect"?

Well, let's see...

God chose the elect before the foundation of the world.
Were you around at that time?

As AG explained to you, it is GOD who "elects", not man.

And God's election is NOT based on our "works" (Eph. 2:8-9, 2 Tim. 1:9, Tit. 3:5, Rom. 4:1-6, 11:5-6, etc. etc.)

And God's election is NOT based on our "wills" (John 1:13, Rom. 9:11-13).

As I understand it, a Calvinist would say no.

That's because the BIBLE says "no".

God determines (or predetermined) who would be saved and who won't.

"Predetermined"?
You mean like in Rom. 8:28-30, and Eph. 1:4-11?

A "free-willer" would say yes. It is every person's choice as to whether they want to believe, or not.

Except that faith is itself a GIFT of God (Eph. 2:8, Phil. 1:29, Rom. 12:3, 2 Pet. 1:1, 1 Cor. 4:7, etc. etc.)

And those who aren't given the gift of faith, CANNOT "believe".

That is why:

John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

If everyone was "free" to believe, as the "free willers" erroneously believe, then Jesus would NEVER have said, "no one can come to me", because you make Jesus a LIAR.

I say yes.

Nobody cares what you say.
 
do people chose to be one of the Elect?
I would say no

God did the choosing
To me, that's Calvinism.

God then blesses God's friends as God wants, in spite of themselves (like God's friend Abraham)
and
God gets all the glory

Salvation is not fair, it is Gracious
God is just. Salvation is available to anyone.

left to own devices, no one would chose God - not even one
I disagree.

I just don't buy L point, thinking Messiah was promised to all Mankind in Genesis 3
1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9; John 3:16
 
To me, that's Calvinism.

It's the Bible.

God is just. Salvation is available to anyone.

Yes, God is just.
No, salvation is NOT "available to anyone".

Justice does not give us some unalienable "right" to salvation.
Especially when most people don't want it in the first place.

I disagree.

Nobody cares.

1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9; John 3:16

So you're citing random verses for no apparent reason?

Did you notice that 1 Tim. 2:4 is NOT about "individuals"?

Did you notice that 2 Pet. 3:9 is LIMITED to a specific group identified as "the beloved" (v.8), and "us-ward" (v.9)?

Did you notice that John 3:16 EXCLUDES unbelievers from salvation?

Yeah, I guess you never bothered to pay attention to Scripture.
 
So the gospels contain two parables of feasts, Matt. 22 ("Parable of the Wedding Banquet"), and Luke 14 ("Parable of the Banquet"). They seem to be parallel accounts, although there are minor differences (one is identified as a wedding, the other isn't identified one way or the other.

Let's see if they are more consistent with Calvinism or Arminianism.


The First Invitation Attempt

Matt. 22:2 “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, 3 and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come.

We have a group who was originally invited. I assume it's referring to the Jews. "But they would not come." Invitation acceptance: ZERO percent.


The Second Invitation Attempt

Matt. 22:4 Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.”’ 5 But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, 6 while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. 7 The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

Now he has his servants really promoting the feast, encouraging everyone to come. Not only do they NOT come, but while some simply ignored them, others killed his servants.


The Final Invitation Attempt

Matt. 22:8 Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9 Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ 10 And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.

The final call was, "invite as many as you find". The term translated "invite" is actually, "kalew", which means to "call". At any rate, we know how the servants understood it because their response was to "gather all whom they found".

It's interesting that it says, "both bad and good", indicating that their invitation was not based on them "preparing" themselves, it was regardless of their behaviour, or in other words, "not by works" (Eph. 2:8-9, Tit. 3:5, 2 Tim. 1:9, Rom. 4:1-6, 11:5-6, etc. etc.)

(In fact, the last part of the parable is about someone who tries to sneak in with his own garment (his works), but is promptly ejected.)


Luke 14: The First Invitation Attempt

Luke 14:16 But he said to him, “A man once gave a great banquet and invited many. 17 And at the time for the banquet he sent his servant to say to those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’ 18 But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said to him, ‘I have bought a field, and I must go out and see it. Please have me excused.’ 19 And another said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to examine them. Please have me excused.’ 20 And another said, ‘I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.’

So again, a feast is prepared, and there were arleady individuals intended for invitation. Yet when the time came, everyone made any excuse not to attend. Nobody came.


The Second Invitation Attempt

Luke 14:21 So the servant came and reported these things to his master. Then the master of the house became angry and said to his servant, ‘Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and crippled and blind and lame.’ 22 And the servant said, ‘Sir, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.’

So now the master of the Feast "dumbs down" on the invitation list, and invites the poor, cripple, blind, and lame. And so they did, "and still there is room". This last comment is interestingly ambiguous, as it doesn't tell us how many of the "down-trodden" group actually came. It could have been a lot, it could have been a few, we don't know. But if we are to inform our opinion from the parallel passage in Matt. 22, it was zero again.


The Final Invitation Attempt

Luke 14:23 And the master said to the servant, ‘Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled. 24 For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet.’”

Unsatisfied still, the master finally instructs his servants to "compel" (ie. "force") them to come in. His banquet WILL be filled, no matter what. And wrath is left for those who were inveited but forsook it.


Summary

So when we combine both parables to inform our understanding, we get the following:

- the Master holds a banquet;
- at the first invitation, nobody came (total depravity)
- at the second invitation, nobody came (total depravity);
- at the final invitation, the guests were COMPELLED to come (irresistible grace);
You left off the part where they were to don the wedding garment

Any who came in without such a garment was expelled
 
Back
Top