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

parables in a way sensitive to their narrative function in the canonical, final form of Luke’s
Gospel. 67 Parsons believes that Lukan parables in the Lukan Travel Narrative should be
aligned in a chiastic or ring structure where the parables are paired, surrounding Luke 14:7-11,
which lies at the heart of the Lukan Parables in the Lukan Travel Narrative. He eventually
asserts that this theme of reversal seems to be the overarching theme of the Lukan Parables in
the Lukan Travel Narrative on the basis of the reversal theme of Luke 14:11 and the reversal
contrast or structure of Lukan Parables. In this article, Parsons’ main concerns serve not only
to correct the neglect of canonical study of the parables, such as canonical form, contexts, and
performance, but to explore the pre-canonical history in order to better understand the
function of the parables, owing to C.H. Talbert’s taxonomy of what the word “Jesus” can
refer to. 68 In conclusion, he contends that Lukan parables have a rich theological resource for
the life and work of the church today, and that they are also landmarks along the Way. 69
It
remains rather questionable as to whether it is forced to frame the Lukan parables in a
chiastic or ring structure around the choice of place at the table (Luke 14:7-11) which
contains the reversal theme, although I agree with his contention that the Lukan parables in
the journey to Jerusalem of Jesus become landmarks for instructing the disciples.
In conclusion, most of the research on the Lukan parables tends to be limited to analyses
of individual parables. Moreover, though there are a few works that focus on the Lukan
parables as a whole, they generally tend to focus on either structural features, or narrative
devices and characteristics. There is little attempt to link the Lukan parables to the purpose of
the Gospel. Therefore, in the light of this, it is worth investigating further the role of Lukan
parables in the purpose of the Gospel of Luke.
67. Ibid., 36.
68. C.H. Talbert’s classification of what “Jesus” can refer to is as follows: “1) The historians’ Jesus, a
reconstructed portrait, derived from the method of form criticism, useful for apologetic reasons; 2) the
evangelist’s Jesus, derived from redaction criticism, useful for homiletical reasons; 3) the apocryphal Jesus,
useful for reconstructing the popular piety of early Christianity; and 4) the canonical Jesus, valuable for
constructive theological and ethical arguments.” Charles H. Talbert, “The Church and Inclusive Language for
God?” PRSt 19 (1992), 421-39, here 434 n. 66.
69. Parsons, “Landmarks Along The Way: The Function of The ‘L’ Parables in The Lukan Travel Narrative,”
SJT, 47.
15