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

glance, appears pessimistic, but in the end she triumphs. Now that she realizes that there is no
point in appealing to the judge’s honour and his compassion, she decides to test the limits of
his expediency. The widow refuses to accept her predestined role in the unreasonable social
system, and breaks social barriers and crosses forbidden social and gender boundaries. The
result of her shameless behaviour is finally a just verdict, namely, justice. 62
In a similar vein, Cotter argues that the parable is a burlesque of the whole justice system,
but also gives the readers a prophetic insight through its mockery of the justice system. The
boldness of the widow in the parable is expressed in her frequent visits in the public male
domain of the courts, and her command to the judge without any title of respect for him. At
the same time it indicates an outrageous refusal to conform to the social scripts defined by the
elites. Only such boldness carries a possible threat to the elites, and strongly shakes the
system. The commentaries (v. 1 and 6-8), however, strive to move the feisty widow back into
63
the conventional role of a meek woman in consonance with society’s conventions. Even
though Herzog and Cotter’s social analysis gives an insight into understanding the parable, it
does not seem to be a proper understanding of the parable, since they excessively ignore the
context surrounding the parable.
Curkpatrick contends that there is dissonance between the parable (vv. 2-5) and its frame
(vv. 1, 6-8) due to the framing of the parable, not a problem with the sources. For him, while
the parable (vv. 2-5) is about “justice,” the framed parable (vv. 1-8) is about “prayer,”
“perseverance,” and “vindication.” The frame is also formed as an allegory, move of the
central character of the parable and a minori ad maius argument. Since the interpretive frame
has eclipsed the central issue in the parable, i.e. “justice,” he seeks to build up a more
adequate frame for the parable within the gospel, consistent with the rhetorical and
theological impetus of that gospel, that is, within the theological impetus of Luke’s widow
64
tradition, and in the textures of reversal in the Magnificat. It is doubtful, however, whether
such an attempt can solve the problem of dissonance between the parable and its frame. In
addition, such an attempt might distort the intention of the writer of the Gospel.
The parable not only makes two main points from one of the characters in the story, that
is, the certainty of God’s hearing prayer and persistence in prayer, but also tightly
62. Herzog, Parables as Subversive, 215-32, especially 224, 230.
63. Cotter, “The Parable of the Feisty Widow and the Threatened Judge,” 328-43, here 332-36, 342-43.
64. Curkpatrick, “Dissonance in Luke 18:1-8,” 107-21; idem, “A Parable Frame-up and Its Audacious
Reframing,” 22-38.
141