the role of the lukan parables in terms of the purpose of luke's gospel

through Jesus’ ministry. Furthermore, the parable accords with Jesus’ teaching elsewhere
about the danger of possessions and domestic ties in following Jesus.
The host became angry when his servant came back and reported the news to him. Then
the host sent out his servant into the streets and alleys of the town to bring the poor, the
crippled, the blind and the lame into the banquet. 18
In spite of carrying out the order of the
host, the servant finds that there is still room at the banquet. So the master sent him out once
again to the roadside and country lanes to seek out the poor.
The main issue here is how to understand the term . While Bailey seeks to
explain the need of the constraint on the basis of the Middle Eastern culture, in which the
19
unexpected invitation must be refused, Forbes interprets it in the light of the presence of
the kingdom, namely, “it expresses the saving will of God, calling people to proleptic
participation in the eschatological banquet.” 20
Either way, the constraint should be
understood as persuasion, not compulsion, given the fact that such a constraint does not fit
either the teaching or the action of Jesus as a whole.
The primary questions here arise from an understanding of the various ‘sendings’.
Interpreters argue that the first sending indicates the mission to Israel, and the two later
sendings point to an ongoing mission to Israel and to the Gentile mission, in particular, on the
21
grounds that the servant is sent beyond the town and that there is still room at the banquet.
Of course, they could elicit the additional evidence elsewhere from 2:32, 3:6 that indicates
the universalist perspective, and 13:28-29, where Jesus himself reflected on a Gentile
mission. 22
On the other hand, irrespective of mission, the additional sendings could only
have to do with an emphasis on God’s concern for the poor and the marginalized of society. It
is better to understand the sendings as God’s concern for the poor and the marginalized of
society, since the substitute guests here are obviously the poor and disabled, not the Gentiles.
In v. 24 the parable concludes with the statement that ‘none of those men who were
23
invited shall taste my banquet’. The plural pronoun indicates a shift to address those
18. The list recalls those listed at 7:22 and appears in 14:13 as well.
19. Bailey, Through Peasant Eyes: More Lucan Parables, Their Culture and Style, 108.
20. Forbes, The God of Old: The Role of the Lukan Parables in the Purpose of Luke’s Gospel, 102.
21. Jeremias, Parables, 64-65; Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, 297; Fitzmyer, The Gospel According
to Luke, 2:1053; Francois Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Lk 15:1-19:27) (EKKNT 3/3; Düsseldorf:
Benziger, 2001), 2:506.
22. S.G. Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts (SNTSMS 23; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1973), 1-28.
23. It is not valid to claim that the parable here shows a tendency of anti-Semitism as God’s rejection of Israel,
since the parable could include other Jews among the substitute guests, not Gentiles and has no allusions that
58