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

30:16.
Doran in the first place strives to prove that Jesus is also within the Jewish tradition that
no one is without sin, still more to save the Pharisees from a bias that they are bad characters,
so as to bring to light the fact that the parable is a caricature of a Pharisee. He, on the grounds
of these, reaches a conclusion that the parable as a caricature of a Pharisee is the critique
against overconfidence in one’s own behaviour as righteous, in which case the main point of
the parable may well fit nicely not only with the message in what follows, but also with the
general theme throughout Luke that one should have no trust in self but rely on God’s mercy
and grace. 78
Still, no reason in the parable is given for a caricature, although Jewish writings
have been less enthusiastic about the negative portrait of Pharisaism implied in the parable.
Above all, the parable directly instructs on both the manner and content of prayer which
occur in comparison between the Pharisee’s and the tax collector’s prayer. While the Pharisee
depends on self-justification, the tax collector entrusts himself to the mercy and grace of God,
with straightforward confession. It should go without saying that in relation to v. 14b, a proud
prayer, self-exaltation as a self-contradictory endeavor cannot be justified, whereas selfhumility
as an essential aspect of a true prayer is justified by God. The tax collector’s prayer
which casts himself wholly onto God’s mercy is also congruent with Jesus’ teaching on
forgiveness and mercy elsewhere (Matt 5:3-7, 18:21-35; Luke 6:20-21; 7:36-50).
The parable also provides an instruction about justification that there is no justification
before God without love of one’s neighbour, that is to say, as long as one despises one’s
neighbour, and that there is justification before God within the humble admission of sins and
79
the plea for forgiveness, with fully relying on God’s mercy. The Pauline concept regarding
justification which contrasts between Law and grace should not be taken here as that of
justification, although, as has been noted above, the Pauline doctrine of justification could
have its roots here. The parable has christological implications in that Jesus makes a divine
pronouncement with reference to judgment, and what is more, in so doing, the story in fact
78. Doran, “The Pharisee and the Tax Collector: An Agonistic Story,” 268-70. With respect to a caricature,
Downing, as have briefly been noted above, takes both prayers for caricatures that the hearers avoid both, with
the tax collector exposing a lack of confidence in God. In a similar vein, Hedrick views two prayers as negative
characters in that the tax collector in particular asks mercy without restoration or restitution. See Downing, “The
Ambiguity of ‘The Pharisee and the Toll-Collector’ (Luke 18:9-14) in the Greco-Roman World of Late
Antiquity,” 89, 98; Hedrick, Parables as Poetic Fictions: The Creative Voice of Jesus, 227-35; Schottroff, The
Parables of Jesus, 11, 13; David A. Neale, None but the Sinners; Religious Categories in the Gospel of Luke
(JSNTSup, 58; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 167-68.
79. The passive verbs in v. 14 as divine passives indicate God as main body of doing the act (“justified,”
“humbled,” “exalted”).
155