The wedding feast parable portrays a very different account in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. In Matthew’s Gospel, the King preparing the wedding feast, upon hearing that none of his guests will be able to attend the event he had been meticulously planning, sent soldiers to murder the guests and destroy their homes. In Luke’s Gospel, the man planning the great feast performs no such act of aggression, and merely invites as many people as possible so that he might fill his house. Furthermore, although the King from Matthew’s account of the parable also invites many other guests, he has the man who does not arrive in the correct attire thrown out.
I believe that the account of this parable in the Gospel of Matthew has been turned into an allegory to a negative outcome. The point of the story is to be a generous individual and to provide for all those who are needing nourishment. The parable of the wedding feast in Matthew’s Gospel does truly deliver this message, as it abandons the social context associated with the parable and is more focused on the content of the “event” itself. Matthew’s Gospel was written for a Jewish-Christian audience while the Gospel of Luke was written for a Gentile audience. This could certainly be an explanation as to why the parable in Luke’s account was more forgiving and less harsh than that found in Matthew’s account.
rmcmulle 
Exactly! Luke’s version retains a sense of social context and one central comparison and thus continues to function as a true parable, whereas Matthew’s version (with the possibility of multiple comparisons and the lack of a really specific reason why Jesus told this story to the audience of scribes and Pharisees in this particular setting) has effectively become an allegory. In terms of audience, you do see some of Luke’s characteristic concerns for the poor and marginalized coming out here. The first group drawn in after the invited guests make excuses includes the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame, and part of the central message of Luke’s parable is not to invite only those who are in a position to reciprocate the favor to come and eat with you. God’s banquet table has room for everybody!
Interesting point! I was quite curious as to why there was such a difference between the two similar stories. Your post made me think about it more and it does make sense that you have to look at one of them in its social context to understand it fully.
I think its interesting that the two authors chose such different approaches to this story. Since they are both about weddings I can’t help but wonder if they are the same story and if so why did the two authors veer so far away from each other. Furthermore if they are derivations of the same story what was the original story?
Interesting evaluation of the differences in the versions of the stories. The way you brought in the different audiences is appropriate for this kind of analysis.