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

of the both. In what follows, I will examine and evaluate the redaction critical approach of the
travel narrative in three categories.
2-2-1. Christological Interpretations
Firstly, the most remarkable treatment of this is H. Conzelmann’s Christological explanation
that the Journey is a symbolic journey presenting Jesus’ awareness of his coming passion in
which he, as 13:33 says, 14 must suffer. A fixed goal and no real change of place during the
Journey show the changed emphasis in Jesus’ ministry, which is his consciousness of the
coming suffering in Jerusalem. He therefore does not travel in a different area, but in a
different manner. In so doing, Luke expands the necessity of Jesus’ passion into an entire
period of his ministry, thereby exposing a concrete form within the narrative itself. In this
respect, the Journey notices create the atmosphere, and function as a viable symbol of Jesus’
resolved awareness of the necessity of his passion and death. 15 However, Conzelmann does
not consider that the Journey is the way, not only to the passion, but also to the glorification,
which is expressed by the motif. Most scholars believe that the in
9:51 has quite a broad meaning, in which case, the term refers to the whole chain of events,
including Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, as well as his passion and crucifixion. 16
Even
though the theme of Jesus’ suffering is very important in the central section, it is also
announced that his glorification is the other side of the cross and resurrection. Jesus’
exaltation is accentuated particularly in the Parable of the Pounds at the end of the Journey.
2-2-2. Ecclesiological and Mission Interpretations
Hoping to fill the gap between the Galilean and the Judean periods, B. Reicke argues that
14. For Conzelmann this verse summarizes Jesus’ awareness of a divine mission which he must suffer in
Jerusalem: “Nevertheless I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following; for it cannot be that
a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem.” (13:33).
15. Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, 62, 65, 197.
16. Reicke, “Instruction and Discussion in the Travel Narrative,” 211; P.A. van Stempvoort, “The Interpretation
of the Ascension in Luke and Acts,” NTS 5 (1958-59), 30-42, here 33; J. Dupont, “’ANEΛHMΦΘH (Act. 1:2),”
NTS 8 (1961-61), 154-57; Davies, “The Purpose of the Central Section of St. Luke’s Gospel,” 164; Gill,
“Observations on the Lukan Travel Narrative and Some Related Passages,” 202; C.H. Talbert, “An Anti-Gnostic
Tendency in Lucan Christology,” NTS 14 (1968), 259-71, here 264-65: Kariamadam, “The Composition and
Meaning of the Lucan Travel Narrative (Lk 9:51-19:46), 180, contends that the various healings in connection
with important journey notices in the Journey show Jesus’ soteriological point.; T.L. Brodie, “The Departure for
Jerusalem (Luke 9:51-56) as a Rhetorical Imitation of Elijah’s Departure for the Jordan (2 Kgs 1:1-2:6),” Bib 70
(1989), 96-109, here 102-103; Creed, Luke, 141; Marshall, Luke, 150-52; Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, 162;
Nolland, Luke, 535; Bock, Luke, 968.
211