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

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