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

that is to say, “by pointing out the necessity of the delay and by reasserting the belief in the
immediacy of the return;… by describing the sheer rebellious nature of the disobedience
which the Jewish rejection entailed; by showing that the life of Jesus was of one piece with
the whole saving work of God of which it was the climax.” 16 For him, the ascension as an
eschatological idea is more important than the parousia. In doing so, Luke replaces future
hope with present belief, that is, now is the time of Jesus’ glory, as the present Lord who has
achieved the goal of his work. 17 In this regard, the ascension of Jesus denotes the moment of
Jesus’ glorification, the confirmation of his divinity and the fulfillment of Israel’s
expectations. Faith in Jesus’ Lordship reestablishes believers who are now on the brink of
being lost because of the problems their belief faced. Though the ascension plays a key role
in Luke-Acts, Luke’s main concern in Acts is the resurrection (2:31; 4:33; 17:18; 26:23),
rather than the ascension. Moreover, his claim that Luke is not interested in salvation or
mission, but in witness is at odds with the overall theological scheme of Luke. 18
In reply to Conzelmann, I.H. Marshall argues that in Luke’s use of salvation history, he
puts his emphasis on the saving significance of it rather than on the history itself. In like
manner, he believes that salvation is the core of Lukan theology. Luke writes, he adds, to
19
offer catechetical instruction regarding the origins of Christianity. In other words, Luke
wants to show that the events confirm the reliability of the catechesis, being immersed in
their theological significance. In view of his concern for accuracy in the prologue of the
Gospel of Luke, and , as well as , his scheme is to manifest the
facts, as he obviously saw them, rather than to create a semi-fictitious account which would
not demonstrate them. 20
That is to say, Luke’s focal point is the confirmation of the Christian
message. He isolates himself, however, from those who think that the demand for such a
confirmation is due to the wavering of the faith of Luke’s readers. Rather, the need is merely
for a fuller presentation of the basic story of the Christian kerygma, or catechetical instruction
which Luke’s reader like Theophilus has only known in general terms. His desire to confirm
the kerygma with a fuller account of that is seen in both sides, in the story of Jesus which is
to be transmitted by faithful witnesses, and in the continuing story that comes into being in
16. E. Franklin, Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose and Theology of Luke-Acts (London: SPCK, 1965), 174.
17. Ibid., 28-29.
18. For other critique, see also R.J. Karris, “Missionary Communities: A New Paradigm for the Study of Luke-
Acts,” CBQ 41 (1979), 80-97, especially 81.
19. Marshall, Luke-Historian & Theologian, 19. 86, 92-94, 102, 116-117.
20. Idem, “Luke and his Gospel,” in ed., P. Stuhlmacher, Das Evangelium und die Evangelien (WUNT 28,
Tübingen: Mohr, 1983), 289-308, here 305.
247