the role of the lukan parables in terms of the purpose of luke's gospel
the role of the lukan parables in terms of the purpose of luke's gospel the role of the lukan parables in terms of the purpose of luke's gospel
ancient Near East. What is more, although m. Kelim 12.7 is presented as evidence to support a headdress, this would presume that the coin had already lost its value as a coin. In other words, coins pierced for use as an ornament would have little value as a coin. 61 The woman’s diligent search presents a threefold question: “Does not one light a lamp and sweep the house and seek diligently until she finds it?” She lights a lamp and sweeps the house, expecting to hear the coin tinkle, since the house would have had little natural light, 62 because, if it had windows, the windows would be small. The Greek word and the phrase represent her diligent and exhaustive efforts. When she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbours to rejoice with her. It is preferable to view the gender of her friends and neighbours in this verse as feminine, in contrast to those of the Lost Sheep. Once again, as in the parable of the Lost Sheep, communal joy over the found is experienced, again with the analogy to the joy experienced in 63 heaven. Even though ‘the angels of God’ in v. 10 replaces ‘in heaven’ in v. 7, it carries the same meaning, with the parallel between the rejoicing of the shepherd/the woman, with his/her friends and neighbours, and that of God with the angels in heaven. 6-3-2. The Interpretation of the Parable With regard to a female reading of this parable, Durber argues that these parables in Luke 15 are sexist, on the basis of a patriarchal culture, revealing a lack of images of women, in particular in the parable of the Prodigal Son, or presenting images which are in themselves sexist. In addition to that, she assumes that these parables are addressed to men, not to women. Even though the Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin are parallels, for Durber there are significant differences, in that the readers less closely identify themselves with the female domestic than with the male owner of sheep. She assumes from both introductions, of v. 4 (“If one of you”) and v. 8 (“Or again if a woman”), and that the woman’s comparison with God is less obvious in the parable of the Lost Coin, than the shepherd in the parable of the Lost Sheep, for, while the shepherd is referred to as God in ‘the greater joy in heaven’, the 61. Derrett, “Fresh Light on the Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin,” 40-41; Susan Marie Praeder, The Word in Women’s Worlds: Four Parables (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1988), 39; Hultgren, Parables, 66; Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 114. 62. Beaten earth or stone was commonly used to make floors of houses. Near Capernaum in particular basalt was plentiful, which were used for floors. Peter Richardson, Building Jewish in the Roman East (Waco, Tex: Baylor University Press, 2004), 76-81. 63. A.F. Walls, “‘In the Presence of the Angels’ Luke 15:10,” NovT 3 (1959), 314-16. 73
woman is simply compared to the angels in the phrase ‘the joy among the angels of God’. 64 However, her arguments are well countered by Batten, who contends that the parable of the Lost Son subverts the patriarchal values by the father focusing on the unity of the family rather than on the matter of honour and dishonour. 65 What is more, the phrase ‘the angels of God’, is simply a circumlocution as reverential expression, and not reference to the woman. On the other hand, Barbara Reid contends that in the parable, Jesus aligns himself with ‘Woman Wisdom’ as ‘Sophia’ incarnate, who searches for the simple among human beings (Prov 1:20-23; 8:1-5), and asks all to her banquet (Prov 9:1-11), comforting those who feel 66 lost, and challenging those who are leaders of the community. Although her observations give insight into the applications of the parable, yet I cannot find any connection between these verses of Proverbs and the parable. Beavis claims that the stories about women in the Bible have been misidentified in traditional patriarchal interpretation through Santor’s quilt which betrays the fact that these 67 women in the five stories have been misrepresented as sexual sinners in spite of all the innocent women. She concludes that Luke 15:10 is also the distorted epigrammatic formulation of the general principle by malestream or patriarchal interpretation, and suggests a corrected epigrammatic formulation of the general principle as follows: “Likewise, I tell you, the angels of God rejoice more over one innocent person who is vindicated than over the repentance of the sinners who have abused them.” 68 Despite the fact that v. 10 (or v. 7) plainly focuses on the repentance of one sinner, it is incorrect to place the emphasis of v. 10 (or v. 7) upon one innocent person. In addition, it is overspeculation that women listeners, as opposed to a male audience, get a different message, since they identify themselves with biblical women whose virtues have been distorted into vices in the patriarchal interpretation. 69 On the contrary, it depends rather on how the audience feel themselves, that is, as the righteous person or sinful person, as opposed to identifying with men or women. What we can say at the very least is that it is not only something new and surprising for 64. Susan Durber, “The Female Reader of the Parables of the Lost,” JSNT 45 (1992), 59-79, here 70-72. 65. A. Batten, “Dishonour, Gender and the Parable of the Prodigal Son,” TJT 13 (1997), 187-200. 66. Barbara E. Reid, “Beyond Petty Pursuits and Wearisome Widows: Three Lukan Parables,” Int 56 (2002), 284-94, here 288-89. 67. Eve (Gen. 1-3), Huldah (2Kgs 22; 2 Chron. 34), Mary Magdalene (Mt. 27:56, 61; 28:1; Mk. 15:40, 47; Lk. 8:2; 24:10; Jn 19:25; 20:1, 18), the Samaritan woman (Jn 4:7-30) and Martha (Lk. 10:38-42; Jn 11:1-44). 68. Mary Ann Beavis, (ed.), “Joy in Heaven, Sorrow on Earth: Luke 15:10,” in The Lost Coin: Parables of Women, Work and Wisdom (Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 39-45, here 44-45. 69. Even Beavis says that v. 10 controls the reader’s interpretation of the three parables in Luke 15. Beavis, “Joy in Heaven, Sorrow on Earth: Luke 15:10,” 39-40. 74
- Page 31 and 32: Secondly, irrespective of how the p
- Page 33 and 34: of the framing structure and in the
- Page 35 and 36: Part II An Analysis of the Lukan Pa
- Page 37 and 38: sever relations with the preceding
- Page 39 and 40: of neighbour, the lawyer would beli
- Page 41 and 42: the Samaritans clearly appears not
- Page 43 and 44: the kingdom breaks abruptly into on
- Page 45 and 46: 2. The Friend at Midnight (11:5-8)
- Page 47 and 48: With respect to v. 8 there are thre
- Page 49 and 50: (the petitioner) The noun , there
- Page 51 and 52: although he knows that it is second
- Page 53 and 54: The rich man in the parable intends
- Page 55 and 56: the parable. V. 21 is a repetition
- Page 57 and 58: either pointing to the meaning of t
- Page 59 and 60: ear fruit (Lev 19:23), 14 whereas B
- Page 61 and 62: parable, namely the three years and
- Page 63 and 64: 5. The Great Banquet (14: 15-24) 5-
- Page 65 and 66: symposia give the background for un
- Page 67 and 68: through Jesus’ ministry. Furtherm
- Page 69 and 70: ecause it is ready.’ People shoul
- Page 71 and 72: In addition to Kilgallen’s view,
- Page 73 and 74: and maintaining sociability and the
- Page 75 and 76: version in the Gospel of Truth may
- Page 77 and 78: shoulders may be commonplace from a
- Page 79 and 80: imagination and are unconvincing. I
- Page 81: 6-3-1. The Analysis of the Parable
- Page 85 and 86: With respect to the authenticity of
- Page 87 and 88: and Scott contend that the practice
- Page 89 and 90: distance from them is not merely ge
- Page 91 and 92: 20:12), as I have pointed out, the
- Page 93 and 94: iniquity, rather than seeking to fi
- Page 95 and 96: . 127 The father leaves the decisio
- Page 97 and 98: the younger son here represents the
- Page 99 and 100: giving too much to his children. 14
- Page 101 and 102: 7. The Parable of the Unjust Stewar
- Page 103 and 104: simply the house. Moreover, it is m
- Page 105 and 106: kingdom of God, a new epoch has ope
- Page 107 and 108: might be an exception to the rule o
- Page 109 and 110: means to give the steward time for
- Page 111 and 112: contends Derrect, is that it is an
- Page 113 and 114: econsider and re-evaluate their und
- Page 115 and 116: prohibition of usury might have had
- Page 117 and 118: followers are strongly encouraged t
- Page 119 and 120: wealth faithfully, it is to express
- Page 121 and 122: here and now, not a revolutionary a
- Page 123 and 124: ministry. In addition, the correct
- Page 125 and 126: similarities between the Gallus and
- Page 127 and 128: Jewish story on the grounds of Deut
- Page 129 and 130: wealth. 27 At that time, this impor
- Page 131 and 132: imply that he remained unburied, 41
ancient Near East. What is more, although m. Kelim 12.7 is presented as evidence to support<br />
a headdress, this would presume that <strong>the</strong> co<strong>in</strong> had already lost its value as a co<strong>in</strong>. In o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
words, co<strong>in</strong>s pierced for use as an ornament would have little value as a co<strong>in</strong>. 61<br />
The woman’s diligent search presents a threefold question: “Does not one light a lamp<br />
and sweep <strong>the</strong> house and seek diligently until she f<strong>in</strong>ds it?” She lights a lamp and sweeps <strong>the</strong><br />
house, expect<strong>in</strong>g to hear <strong>the</strong> co<strong>in</strong> t<strong>in</strong>kle, s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> house would have had little natural light,<br />
62<br />
because, if it had w<strong>in</strong>dows, <strong>the</strong> w<strong>in</strong>dows would be small. The Greek word and<br />
<strong>the</strong> phrase represent her diligent and exhaustive efforts.<br />
When she has found it, she calls toge<strong>the</strong>r her friends and neighbours to rejoice with her. It<br />
is preferable to view <strong>the</strong> gender <strong>of</strong> her friends and neighbours <strong>in</strong> this verse as fem<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>e, <strong>in</strong><br />
contrast to those <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Lost Sheep. Once aga<strong>in</strong>, as <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> parable <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Lost Sheep,<br />
communal joy over <strong>the</strong> found is experienced, aga<strong>in</strong> with <strong>the</strong> analogy to <strong>the</strong> joy experienced <strong>in</strong><br />
63<br />
heaven. Even though ‘<strong>the</strong> angels <strong>of</strong> God’ <strong>in</strong> v. 10 replaces ‘<strong>in</strong> heaven’ <strong>in</strong> v. 7, it carries <strong>the</strong><br />
same mean<strong>in</strong>g, with <strong>the</strong> parallel between <strong>the</strong> rejoic<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> shepherd/<strong>the</strong> woman, with<br />
his/her friends and neighbours, and that <strong>of</strong> God with <strong>the</strong> angels <strong>in</strong> heaven.<br />
6-3-2. The Interpretation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Parable<br />
With regard to a female read<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> this parable, Durber argues that <strong>the</strong>se <strong>parables</strong> <strong>in</strong> Luke 15<br />
are sexist, on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> a patriarchal culture, reveal<strong>in</strong>g a lack <strong>of</strong> images <strong>of</strong> women, <strong>in</strong><br />
particular <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> parable <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Prodigal Son, or present<strong>in</strong>g images which are <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>mselves<br />
sexist. In addition to that, she assumes that <strong>the</strong>se <strong>parables</strong> are addressed to men, not to<br />
women. Even though <strong>the</strong> Lost Sheep and <strong>the</strong> Lost Co<strong>in</strong> are parallels, for Durber <strong>the</strong>re are<br />
significant differences, <strong>in</strong> that <strong>the</strong> readers less closely identify <strong>the</strong>mselves with <strong>the</strong> female<br />
domestic than with <strong>the</strong> male owner <strong>of</strong> sheep. She assumes from both <strong>in</strong>troductions, <strong>of</strong> v. 4<br />
(“If one <strong>of</strong> you”) and v. 8 (“Or aga<strong>in</strong> if a woman”), and that <strong>the</strong> woman’s comparison with<br />
God is less obvious <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> parable <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Lost Co<strong>in</strong>, than <strong>the</strong> shepherd <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> parable <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Lost Sheep, for, while <strong>the</strong> shepherd is referred to as God <strong>in</strong> ‘<strong>the</strong> greater joy <strong>in</strong> heaven’, <strong>the</strong><br />
61. Derrett, “Fresh Light on <strong>the</strong> Lost Sheep and <strong>the</strong> Lost Co<strong>in</strong>,” 40-41; Susan Marie Praeder, The Word <strong>in</strong><br />
Women’s Worlds: Four Parables (Wilm<strong>in</strong>gton: Michael Glazier, 1988), 39; Hultgren, Parables, 66; Snodgrass,<br />
Stories with Intent, 114.<br />
62. Beaten earth or stone was commonly used to make floors <strong>of</strong> houses. Near Capernaum <strong>in</strong> particular basalt<br />
was plentiful, which were used for floors. Peter Richardson, Build<strong>in</strong>g Jewish <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Roman East (Waco, Tex:<br />
Baylor University Press, 2004), 76-81.<br />
63. A.F. Walls, “‘In <strong>the</strong> Presence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Angels’ Luke 15:10,” NovT 3 (1959), 314-16.<br />
73