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

two court systems, for religious matters, and for worldly ones, and as
opposed to Sherwin-White 32 views the judge in the parable as a Gentile judge. 33 The
Mishnah proposes a tribunal of three judges to decide cases concerning property, but also
suggests that every town with 120 or more men must establish a tribunal of seven judges. 34 It
is doubtful whether in such an ideal jurisdiction, justice was dispensed. In contrast, the
Talmud allows one qualified scholar to adjudicate money matters. 35 Furthermore, Josephus
claims that in Galilee there were local courts composed of seven judges. 36 On the other hand,
Herzog takes a pessimistic view of the judicial system of first-century Palestine, pointing out
that judges of the court were staffed to serve the interests of their rulers, the ruling elite, and
not to dispense impartial justice. Even he counters Derrett’s claim that the customary Torah
courts were appointed by local notabilities or men renowned for piety with keen and impartial
minds, since the actual historical situation and society would be messier than the ideal which
he is describing. 37
In any case, what is important here is that we have sketchy information
about how the Jewish system of jurisprudence was composed of and how it disposed justice.
The widow’s continual importunity met with the ongoing refusal of the judge. Yet, the
audience is left without a concrete reason for the judge’s refusal, though it is perhaps because
38
the widow gave no bribes, or an opponent of hers had an influential power over the
judge. 39 The judge’s thoughts are exposed to the hearer of the parable, as in other Lukan
parables, 40
through an interior monologue: “though I neither fear God nor regard man, yet
because this widow bothers me, I will vindicate her, or she will wear me out by her continual
coming.” The judge finally decided to give the widow vindication, simply because he wants
to remove her constant pestering, and not because of a change of character. In reality, he
betrays the fact that his character remains unchanged through one more repetition, “I neither
fear God nor regard man.” here is taken to be conveying the sense of continually,
32. A.N. Sherwin-White, Rome Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963),
133-34, regards the judge in the parable as a Jewish judge.
33. Derrett, Law in the New Testament Times (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970), 180.
34. m. Sanh. 1.1; 3.1; H. Danby, The Mishnah (London: Oxford University Press, 1985), 385.
35. b. Sanh. 4b-5a; H. Cohen, “Bet Din and Judges,” Encyclopedia Judaica 2, 721-23.
36. J. W. 2.569-71.
37. Herzog, Parables as Subversive, 224-27; Derrett, Law in the New Testament Times, 34-35.
38. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, 306; Ben Witherington, “Jesus, the Savior of the Least, the Last, and the
Lost,” Quarterly Review (1995), 197-211, 203.
39. Jeremias, Parables, 153.
40. Cf. also 12:16-21, 42-46; 15:11-32; 16:1-8; 20:9-10. Philip Sellew, “Interior Monologue as a Narrative
Device in the Parables of Luke,” JBL 111 (1992), 247-48.
136