The Parable of the Persistent Widow (Luke 18:1-8)
First published in Restoration Quarterly 33.4 (1991), 209-223.
The Parable of the Persistent Widow (Luke 18:1-8)
John Mark Hicks
Harding University Graduate School of Religion
Memphis, Tennessee
The purpose of this article is twofold. First, it intends to defend the unity of the literary unit Luke 18:2-8. The interpretation of the parable in 18:6-8 is not a Lukan creation but was originally attached to the parable by Jesus. Second, it intends to offer an interpretation of the parable which is consonant with Luke’s introductory comment (18:1) and Jesus’ interpretation in 18:6-8. In light of these purposes, the article is divided into three sections: (1) The Unity of 18:2-8; (2) Textual Analysis of the Unit; and (3) A Parabolic Overview. The last section will place the preceding technical discussions in a proper interpretative framework.
The Unity of Luke 18:2-8
Verse 1. There is a general consensus within critical scholarship that verse 1 is a Lukan preface to the parable proper.[1] Indeed, there seems to be no reason to doubt this conclusion given the following considerations: (a) legein eipen parabolen is characteristically Lukan (4:23; 6:39; 12:16; 13:6; 14:7; 15:3; 18:9; 19:11; 20:9, 19; 21:29); (b) the words do not purport to be the words of Jesus; and (c) while the interpretation suggested by verse 1 was the original intent of the parable, the phraseology is reminiscent of the Pauline corpus, a fact which suggests Lukan composition.[2] Therefore verse 1 must be seen as a Lukan introduction. This, however, should not cast Luke’s interpretation of the parable[3] into an unfavorable light because surely he could have correctly interpreted the parable as well as anyone else. Since resources available to Luke are no longer extant (Luke 1:1-4), his interpretation ought to be given considerable weight.
Verses 6-8a. It is certain that 6a eipen de ho kurios ought to be regarded as Luke’s editorial notation in order to set the parable off from its application. This is a common device found in Luke.[4] There is little agreement, however, concerning the authenticity of verses 6b-8a. This authenticity and consequent unity with the parable is defended by Jeremias, Deschryverr, De Ru, Delling and Catchpole among others,[5] but is denied by Bultmann, Julicher, and Linnemann.[6]
These are five basic objections against the authenticity: (a) applications to parables are frequently secondary; (b) the parallel parable in Luke 11:5-8 has no such addition; (c) the application alters the intention of the parable, which originally “meant to encourage persistence in prayer”;[7] (d) “nowhere else is the application so sharply separated from the parable”; and (e) “The concept of eklektwn is not found in any genuine saying of Jesus.”[8]
Concerning (a), “frequently” does not imply “always.” Every instance must be examined on its own merits. The formula of “parable plus interpretation” is well established in the Old Testament literature (Judges 9:7-20; 2 Sam. 12:1-10; 2 Kings 14:8-10; Isa. 5:1-7; Ezek. 17:1-24).[9] (b) Objection assume that Luke 11:5-8 is a parallel, which is sometimes denied.[10] In any event, is not Luke 11:9-13 an apt “application” of verses 5-8? For in those verses Jesus answes his audience that God is not like the friend who will not rise to give his friend food. Rather, God gives good gifts to them that ask him. (c) It seems rather strange that Luke would retain both verse 1 and verses 6-8a in his text if they were contradictory. Apparently, Luke saw no tension between the two texts. In reference to objection (d), as was suggested above, verse 6a could be nothing more than Luke’s attempt to call special attention to the ensuing interpretation. Rather than “separating” the parable from verses 6b-8a, it reinforces the continuity and connection between the two statements. Lastly (e) the question of the identity of the elect is raised. Certainly this concept is not foreign to the gospel tradition (cf. Luke 23:25; Mark 13:20,22,27; Matth. 22:14), and there are abundant references to Jesus’ concern for “gathering a community around himself on the basis of response to his word.”[11] Even if no other reference to the elect can be observed in the words of Jesus, why could not Jesus have used the term, since it has such a rich Old Testament background (a fact of which Jesus could not have been ignorant; Isa. 42:1; 45:4; 65:9, 22). It will be shown, however, that the concept is appropriate in this context.
The objections to the genuineness of verses 6b-8a are inconsequential. On the other hand, the parable, if it stood alone, would be indeterminate, and thus meaningless. It is a parable which requires an interpretation if it is to have specific meaning. If it is lifted from its Lukan context it can take on any meaning.[12] In addition, there is continuity between verses 2-5 and 6-8, as will be demonstrated.[13]
Verse 8b. Since this verse contains a saying concerning the Son of Man, it has often been regarded as secondary. The major reasons for such a judgment are: (a) “The mention of the Son of Man is totally alien to the preceding parable”;[14] (b) this is the only example of the association of the Son of Man with faith;[15] (c) pistin is “reminiscent of Paul”; (d) the Son of Man is represented as judge, and this is not expressed elsewhere; and (3) plen is a Lukan stylistic pecularity.[16] Thus, 8b is often regarded as a Lukan redaction in order to link this parable with the earlier eschatological unit in 17:22-37.
Catchpole argues that “the issue hinges on whether verse 8b does or does not belong to the preceding parable.”[17] Marshall sees a close connection, because “the Son of Man is the eschatological vindicator of the elect.”[18] This is clearly indicated in Luke 17:24-26, where the Son of Man takes on judicial functions (cf. Luke 21:36; Mark 8:38; Matt. 16:27; 24:30; 25:31). Concerning (e), plen cannot be used to show Lukan composition,[19] since it occurs in Matthew (11:22,224; 18:7; 26:39, 64) and Mark (12:32) as well, though it does, admittedly, appear more often in Luke than in the other Synoptics. Though pistin has the article here, this does not necessarily render it Pauline, as is evident if one will compare Matthew 8:10 with Luke 7:9.[20] Further, faith is linked with the Son of Man in John 9:35. In fact, “faith” may point back to 17:5 with 18:b concluding the eschatological sayings of 17:22ff.[21]
The authenticity of 18:8b is supported by the close association it has with the Son of Man sayings in 17:22-37.[22] In the latter, there is a coming of the Son of Man from heaven (Matt. 234:44, 46 / Luke 12:40, 43; 17:22, 26, 30); it will be of worldwide significance (17:23, 24); and there will be a shortage of some spiritual quality (as in the days of Noah and Lot). These factors are also present in 18:8b, for the Son of Man comes to seek faith upon the earth. The saying of 8b, then, is at least appropriate to the Lukan context. In fact, it will be notes shortly how it is also linked with the parable so that without it the parable would be incomplete.
Textual Analysis of the Literary Unit
Introduction (vs. 1). Only here and in verse 9 does Luke preface a parable with meaning. He wishes to indicate the aim or point of the parable before relating it. There may be two reasons for this. First, Luke wanted his readers to view the parable from a particular perspective. If so, the parable, as contended above, may be indeterminate apart from the specific context. Second, as Ash has suggested, these parables (18:2ff.; 18:10ff.) speak to a contemporary problem in the Lukan community, and thus he takes special painst o make the point crystal clear.[23]
Jesus spoke this parable, Luke reports, “with reference to” continued prayer.[24] Strack and Billerbeck have assembled evidence which indicates that continuous prayer, in the Jewish mentality, would be obnoxious or annoying to God. Three times a day was considered enough (take a cue from Dan. 6:10).[25] Thus, Jesus’ encouragement to pray pantote must be seen in contrast with the contemporary Jewish attitude. Further, this is a call to persistence in prayer, and not to “become weary, tired” or “lose heart, despair.”[26] The same term, egkakein, is found in 2 Corinthians 4:1, 16 in reference to the ministry of reconciliation. A. T. Robinson aptly translates it as “to turn coward.”[27] These admonitions are directed toward the disciples since there is a continuity between 17:22ff. and 18:1.[28]
Luke, therefore, sees the parable as encouraging persistent prayer. Jeremias thinks that this “can hardly be a correct indication of the aim of the parable.”[29] The difference between Luke and Jeremias on the point of the parable is critical. The following analysis intends to establish that Jeremias is mistaken.
The Parable (vss. 2-5). The discussion of the parable may be divided into four areas of concerns: (a) the character of the widow; (b) the character of the judge; (c) the widow’s demand and the judge’s response; and (d) the motive for the judge’s eventual concession.
First, the widow in scripture is “almost a symbol of helplessness.”[30] The plight and care of widows is a constant theme of scripture (Exod. 22:22-24; Deut. 10:18; 24:17; 27:19; Isa. 1:17; 10:2; Job 24:3, 21; Jer. 22:3; Mal. 3:5; Mark 12:40; Acts 6:1; 9:41; James 1:27; 1 Tim. 5:3-15). These passages are rich background for Jesus’ conception of the widow in general. In particular, if God hears the cry of a widow in oppression, his wrath will burn against her adversary (Exod. 22:22-24): “Cursed be he who perverts the justice due to…the widow” (Deut. 27:19). And Isaiah 10:1-2 refers particularly to those judges who pervert justice that widows may be “their spoil.” In fact, God himself is championed as the “protector of widows” (Psa. 68:5).[31] Consequently the widow in the parable must be viewed as the person “in the right.”
Second, the judge in Israel was to be strictly just. Partiality in judging is explicitly condemned (Prov. 24:23; 18:5; Deut. 16:18-20). Yet, perversion of justice was quite common in Israel, as is evident in the prophets (Isa. 10:1-2; Hab. 1:1-4; cf. Exod. 23:6; Eccl. 5:8). Although the judge was the one who was to deal out justice, he was often the one who perverted it.
It is, therefore, surprising to read that Derrett and Crossan regard the judge as basically neutral (impartial). They claim that the phrase “not regarding man” (vss. 2, 4) shows his impartiality in judgment.[32] This interpretative move would set the whole parable in an entirely different light.
However, Derrett and Crossan are mistaken. It is explicitly stated that the judge does not fear God, and yet the Old Testament is clear that the fear of God is a necessary prerequisite for administering justice, since God is the judge of all the earth (Prov. 17:15; 24:23-25; Psa. 94:2; 7:8; 89:19). Further, “such a characteristic of the judge produces unfavorable treatment of a widow,” and his ultimate vindication of the widow is seen “as a conscious infringement of his normal principles.”[33] Thus, the judge is, as Jesus calls him in verse 6, an unjust (unrighteous) judge.
Third, the widow comes to the judge saying, “Ekdikeson me apo tou antidikou mou.” The word antidikou refers to a legal opponent or adversary in a lawsuit (cf. Matt. 5:25; Luke 12:58).[34] Ekdikeson is a strict legal term meaning “vindicate a person by taking up his cause”[35] or “take up my case” as another’s legal representative.[36] In fact, Moulton and Milligan cite a papyrus in which a widow needed an ekdikos (a legal representative).[37] The widow, therefore, desires legal justice or vindication.[38] This, in view of the Old Testament texts listed above, is a fair request and the proper responsibility of the judge.
The judge’s response is to wait. He refuses for a long time (epi chronon) to give her justice. In the very delay the judge was showing disrespect, not only for the law of God, but for common Jewish practice. According to Dembitz, “the suit of an orphan must always be heard first; next, that of a widow (following Isa. 1:17).”[39] Yet the widow persists. The imperfect tense of the verb erchomene indicates that she was constantly (continually) going to the judge with her request. This persistence was her only weapon since most likely she did not have any bribe money.
Finally, the judge gives in to the widow and grants her request (or at least he does so in intention). Jesus is explicitly concerned to point out the motive involved in the judge’s decision (i.e., he said it ‘within himself’). The repeated phrase “I fear neither God nor man” directs the reader not to look for the motive there. Rather, the motive is stated in this way: “so that she won’t eventually wear me out with her coming” (NIV). There are two problems with this subordinate clause. (1) Should eis telos be construed with erchomene or with hupwpiaze?, and (2) what is the meaning of hupwpiaze?
The difference between the two choices is this. If the prhase is construed with erchomene, then it would be translated: “Lest coming continually she wear me out” (cf. RV; ASV; AV; NASB; RSV). If is construed with hupwpiaze, then it would be translated: “Lest coming she at last wear me out” (NIV; NBV). It seems best to opt for the first alternative since it emphasizes the persistence of the widow and erchomene comes between eis telos and hupwpiaze in the Greek sentence.[40] This also underscores best her persistence in coming before the judge.
Hupwpiaze literally means to “strike under the eye, give a black eye to,” and occurs only in one other place in the New Testament (1 Cor. 9:27).[41] Montefiore gives the metaphorical meaning of “pester”;[42] whereas Weiss does not rule out the possibility that the widow might do actual physical harm to the judge in a violent act.[43] However, a recent study by Derrett seems to indicate a different sort of meaning.[44]
“She will blacken my face,” a well-known expression throughout the Orient, is not unknown in Hebrew (Lam. 4:8; 5:10; Jer. 8:21; Joel 2:6; Nahum 2:10). “He has blackened my face” means “he has effectively slandered me, or has treated me in such a way that my prestige has fallen; he has, in effect, disgraced me.”
Thus, the judge may be afraid of losing his prominent position.[45] It is out of selfish reasons that he answers the widow’s request. It is not his respect for God or for humanity in general which brings him to vindicate the widow, but his own selfish fear of losing his position and prestige.
The parable, then, envisions a widow demanding justice. She is persistent in her request. At first the judge refuses, but then after a while gives in because he is afraid that he will be disgraced publicly. The parable, then, falls within the prophetic picture of the poor widow against the powerful unrighteous judge. This time the widow wins because she is persistent.
The application (vss. 6-8). This discussion is divided into five parts: (a) verse 6; (b) God’s vindication of the elect; (c) makrothumei; (d) en tachei; and (e) the saying of the Son of Man.
First, Jesus calls attentionto what the judge has said to himself. Thus he signals the key toward interpreting the parable. In this, the judge is characterized as “unjust” or “unrighteous” (cf. 16:8), which already begins the strong contrast between the judge and God. The focus of the parable at this point is what the judge has said; Jesus turns “to take close scrutiny of the judge’s word.”[46]
Second, “Will not God vindicate his elect who cry unto him day and night” is a rhetorical question which expects the answer “Yes.”[47] The word “vindicate” is that which the widow demanded of the judge: ekdikesin. Those who desire ekdikesin are God’s elect. God’s own chosen people seek from him a certain justice. This, together with the phrase “who cry unto him day and night,” reminds one of the many Psalms where the people of God (Israel) cry out to God for vindication (cf. Psa. 17:1-2; 26:1-3; 43:1; 88:1). The cry of “how long” seems to echo in the background as in other passages (Psa. 6:3; 13:1f.; 35:17; 74:9f.; 80:4; 89:46; 94:3; Hab. 1:2; Zech. 1:12; Rev. 6:10). In this, the widow symbolizes the elect who continually cry out for help to their God in prayers. Thus the concept of the elect is natural to the Old Testament background.
Third, the most difficult part of the text now comes under consideration: kai makrothumei. Marshall considers eight different views of the phrase,[48] and Catchpole amasses six.[49] This is not the place to review all these alternatives, for these involve many technical and minute details that would divert our purpose. However, in order to understand the problem more acutely, note these differing translations:[50]
(1) Moffatt: “Will he be tolerant to their opponents?”
(2) RV: “and he is long suffering over them”
(3) AV: “though he bear long with them”
(4) RSV: “Will he delay long over them?” (cf. NASV; NBV)
(5) ASV: “and yet he is long suffering over them”
(6) NIV: “Will he keep putting them off?”
(7) Greijdanus: “Although with respect to them he waits a long time.”[51]
There are three issues here: (a) How should kai be translated? (b) Is the statement a question in itself or is it a continuation of a previous phrase (7a)? (c) What meaning should be given to makrothumei? There is evidence that kai may be translated “yet, for all that” (ASV)[52] or “despite,”[53] making the following phrase adversative, or at least concessive. If this is correct, then 7b must be a continuation of 7a. Consequently, it alludes to a period of delay in which God is waiting patiently over his elect. Although God will ultimately vindicate his people, the thought seems to be that he will patiently wait for the vindication in his own counsel. It is best to take the verb in the sense of “delay.” Fitzmyer notes that the term is found in parallelism with another verb which means “to be slow” in Sirach 35:19 (LXX).[54] Thus “the delay is seen as part of God’s gracious purpose.”[55] Horst aptly concludes: “God’s makrothumei ep’ autois is for them a necessary interval of grace which should kindle faith and prayers that move mountains (17:6).”[56]Verse 7, then, should be tentatively translated: “Will not God vindicate his elect who cry unto him day and night even though he appears to delay over them?”
Fourth, en tachei is also a difficult phrase. Primarily two meanings have been advanced in this passage: (a) suddenly or (b) shortly.[57] This also entails a great deal of discussion that is not possible here. It appears that the evidence can support either alternative depending on how one translates makrothumei.[58] Since we have concluded that makrothumei involves the sense of delay, it is best to take en tachei in sense (a). “Jesus,” Morris comments, “is speaking of the certainty of speedy action when the time comes.”[59] “Such speed,” Ridderbos adds, “is subject to God’s fulfilling his own counsel.”[60]
Fifth, in this final saying Jesus directs attention away from the contrast between the judge and God, and toward the comparison between the widow and the disciples. There is certainty in the fact that God will judicially vindicate his people by the coming of the Son of Man (17:22-37). The delay in his coming does not nullify the certainty. Yet, the real point is whether or not the Son of Man, when he does come to vindicate God’s elect, will find faith on earth. The faith mentioned here “naturally means that faith which sustains and manifests itself in persistent prayer.”[61] The focus of 18:8b is not on the Son of Man coming, but “on the faith which men have on earth”[62] (Luke 17:24, 26, 30; 21:36). The “Son of Man saying,” then, seeks not to inform or communicate knowledge, but to rouse to effort; to rouse the disciples to prayerful persistence because the widow received her request on account of her persistence.
In summary, Jesus focuses on the judge, since God’s compassion and love for his elect are seen in contrast to the judge’s apathy for the condition of the widow. Will not God vindicate his own people if his unrighteous judge vindicates the widow? While it may seem as though God has forgotten his people, he will act on their behalf when the time comes. There is certainty with respect to God’s ultimate victory in the coming of the Son of Man. However, uncertainty lies in whether the disciples will be as persistent as the widow was. Though God is an absolute contrast of the judge, will the disciples follow the example of the widow? Will the Son of Man, when he comes, find faith upon the earth?
A Parabolic Overview
Jeremias argues that Luke’s interpretation (vs. 1) sees the widow as the central figure (who is the model of persistent prayer) and that Jesus’ interpretation (vss. 6-8) sees the judge as the central figure who is in absolute contrast with God. Luke’s interpretation is, he concludes, mistaken.[63] However, Jeremias has set up a false dilemma. The parable, in fact, revolves around both figures. This may be seen by noting the following structure in the literary unit:
A the activity of the widow (v. 3)
B the judge’s response (vss. 4-5)
B’ God’s contrasting response (vss. 6b-8a)
A’ the faith of the disciples (vs. 8b)
There is a double theme present: the widow-judge relationship as it is compared to the disciple-God relationship. While the disciples should follow the widow’s example in persistence, God is an absolute contrast to the unrighteous judge.[64]
The widow as she goes before the judge is uncertain about the outcome, and is, in fact, rejected for a certain period of time. The judge is the uncertain figure in that particular relationship. Yet the widow is persistent despite the uncertainty of the situation: she continually goes before the judge. However, the disciple as he goes before God ought not to be uncertain about the outcome. God will surely vindicate his people even though he may forbear with them for a while. The uncertainty concerns not God, but the faith of the disciples. Will they be persistent like the widow?
The interrelationship among the four characters of the parable and interpretation may be represented by this chart:
[pic]
The parable, then, fits well with the Lukan context in which it is placed. Having considered the eschatological coming of the Son of Man (17:22-37), Jesus seeks to encourage and warn his disciples. He encourages them by noting that even though there may be a delay in his coming, God will certainly vindicate his elect (the eschatological people of God). Thus Bruce rightly observes, “The whole raison d’etre of the parable is the existence of such delay.”[65] The themes of “vindication” and the Son of Man link this parable with what has gone before. On the other hand, the parable serves as a warning to the disciples that they must be faithful (persistent) in their prayers.[66] The temptation to slacken off in prayer is what Jesus is denouncing through the action of the widow. This aspect of the parable finds expression elsewhere in Luke, particularly 21:36 where Jesus warns his disciples to be watchful in prayer. Luke, instead of undermining the words of Jesus in verses 6b-8a, simply emphasizes verse 8b. Luke writes to encourage his readers to pray for vindication with the knowledge that God will certainly grant it when the Son of Man comes again.
Thus God will ultimately save his people, but will the Son of Man, when he comes, find persistent (watchful) prayer on the earth?
-----------------------
[1] Cf. the evidence supplied by G. Delling, “Das Gleichnix vom gottlosen Richter,” Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 53 (1962): 3-6. J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, trans. S. H. Hooke, 8th ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons 1972), p. 93, n.13 is confusing at this point. He attributes the interpretation to Luke, but sees non-Lukan peculiarities present which, he argues, go back to his sources. Is this, then, according to Jeremias, a pre-Lukan interpretation?
[2] This is seen, among other things, in the use of egkakew (2 Cor 4:1, 16; Eph. 3:13; 2 Thess. 3:13; Gal. 6:9) and the emphasis on continual prayer (Rom. 12:12; Col. 4:2; 1 Thess. 5:17).
[3] In fact, one of the arguments for the Lukan origin of verse 1 is that its interpretation is alien to the parable itself. Cf. C. W. F. Smith, The Jesus of the Parables (Philadelphia: United Press, 1975), p. 186, and C. G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels (New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1968), 2:552. This is certainly misguided, as this article will demonstrate.
[4] Luke 7:3, 19; 10:1, 39, 41; 11:39; 12:42; 13:15; 17:5, 6; 19:8a; 22:61. However, one ought not to suppose, as does Bultmann, that this marks off what follows as secondary because ultimately all Gospel material is marked off by the phrase “Jesus said,” “the Lord said,” etc. (The History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. J. Marsh, 2nd ed. [New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1968], p. 175).
[5] Jeremias, p. 156; R. Deschryverr, “La Parabole du Juge Malveillant (Luc. 18, 1-8),” Revue d’Historie et de Philosphie Religieuses 48/4 (1968): 355-366; G. De Ru, “De Gelij Kenis van de onrechevaardige Richter (Lucas 18:1-8),” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 25/4 (1971): 379-392; G. Delling, “Das Gleichnis vom Gottlosen Richter,” Zeitschrift fur Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 53 (1962): 1-25, and D. R. Catchpole, “The Son of Man’s Search for Faith (Lukc xviii.8b),” Novum Testamentum 19/2 (1977): 81-104, esp. 90ff. For a summary of the discussion, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (x-xxiv), Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday & Company, 1985), pp. 1175ff. Fitzmyer argues that both the parable and the interpretation, but not including 8b, are pre-Lukan (p. 1176).
[6] Bultmann, p. 175; A. Julicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (Tubingen, 1910), 2:286; E. Linnemann, Jesus of the Parables: Introduction and Exposition, trans. J. Sturdy, 3rd ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), p. 187, n.14. Linnemann denies the authenticity of the whole parable since the parable cannot stand by itself. Therefore, the parable and application are a unit, but neither is authentic. In answering the above objections, then, we will, with respect to Linnenmann, demonstrate the authenticity of the parable as well. See Edwin D. Freed, “The Parable of the Judge and the Widow (Luke 18:1-8),” New Testament Studies 33/1 (1987): 38-60, who surveys the debate about Lukan origin and authenticity. He concludes that both the parable and interpretation are Lukan “linguistically and stylistically” (p. 38). Freed’s conclusion, though he leaves the issue of authenticity open, rejects the parable and interpretation as the ipsissima verba of Jesus (p. 57). I am unconvinced that such a “thoroughly Lukan composition” (p. 56) is before us, but there is no space to discuss this issue here.
[7] Objections (a), (b) and (c) are found in Bultmann, p. 175.
[8] Objections (d) and (e) are found in Linnemann, p. 187, n. 14.
[9] Catchpole, pp. 90, 91.
[10] Cf. H. G. Meecham, “The Parable of the Unjust Judge,” The Expository Times 57 (1945-56): 306-307. Is the point of the Parable of the Friend at Midnight persistence, or actually a parable contrast in particular between the one who is in bed and God? Cf. Alan F. Johnson, “Assurance for Man: The Fallacy of Translating anaidear,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22 (1979): 123-132. In view of the conclusions of this article, I would argue that there is a double theme. The friend at the door represents the disciples, who are thereby taught persistence, and the friend in bed represents a contrast with God. For a contrasting approach to the Parable of the Friend at Midnight, see David R. Catchpole, “Q and ‘the Friend at Midnight’ (Luke xi.5-8/9),” Journal of Theological Studies 34/2 (1983): 407-424.
[11] Catchpole, “Faith,” p. 103. Cf. Luke 12:32 and Matthew 23:14 in particular.
[12] This is lavishly illustrated by Dan O. Via, “The Parable of the Unjust Judge: A Metaphor of the Unrealized Self,” in Seminology and Parables, D. Patte, ed. (Pittsburgh: The Pickwick Press, 1976), pp. 1-27. Linneman, as noted in footnote 6, defends this line of argument, p. 187, n. 14.
[13] One immediate indication of such a continuity is the use of the root ekdike in the two sections (vss. 3,5,7,8).
[14] A. J. B. Higgins, Jesus and the Son of Man (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964), p. 92.
[15] Higgins, p. 92; H. E. Todt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965), p. 99.
[16] For (c), (d), and (e), see Todt, p. 99.
[17] Catchpole, “Faith,” p. 81.
[18] I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1978), p. 676. For a good survey of opinions, see I. H. Marshall, “The Synoptic Son of Man Sayings in Recent Discussion,” New Testament Studies 12 (1966): 327-351; and for a recent survey see Donald Jackson, “A Survey of the 1967-1981 Study of the Son of Man,” Restoration Quarterly 28/2 (1985-86): 67-78.
[19] Marshall, Gospel, pp. 255, 676.
[20] C. Colpe, “ho huios tou anthrwpou,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Friedrich, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1972), 8:435, n. 264. “Hence the use of epi tes ges corresponds to that in Mark 2:10 and that of pistis is the same as Matt. 8:10 and not in Paul.”
[21] W. L. Knox, The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge: University Press, 1957), 2:114, n.1 regards pistin as an Aramaism (cf. Deut. 32:20; Hab. 2:4). Jeremias, p. 155, n. 13, and F. H. Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967), p. 364, n.1 agree with Knox. This, if true, would evidence the antiquity of the saying.
[22] See Catchpole, “Faith,” pp. 85f.
[23] Anthony L. Ash, The Gospel According to Luke (Austin: Sweet Publishing Co., 1973), 2:84. This is not say, however, that the same point was not applicable to Jesus’ contemporaries. It is simply a matter of emphasis for Luke.
[24] Whit it is true that pros with the infinitive indicates “purpose,” it is best translated “with reference to” in this place. Cf. Ernes DeWitt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, reprinted 1976), paragraph 107, 414; F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. And rev. R. W. Funk (Chicago: University Press, 1961), paragraph 402.5.
[25] Hermann Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash (Munchen, 1924), 2:237. “Diese Mahnung entsprach nicht der judischen Anshauung.” Cf. Talmud Berakh 3.6; 31a; Midrash Sm. 2.10; Tanch 49b.
[26] W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans., ed., and rev. W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gringrich, and F. W. Danbar (Chicago: University Press, 1979), p. 215.
[27] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), 2:231.
[28] Autois points back to the disciple audience in 17:22. 18:9 would refer back to the Pharisee audience in 17:20, if it is not to be regarded as an independent saying attached to the eschatological sayings of 17:22-18:8 in view of the fact that the parable in verses 1-8 refers to prayer.
[29] Jeremias, p. 100.
[30] Leon Morris, The Gospel According to St. Luke (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1974), p. 263.
[31] Widows are always cast in a positive light in the New Testament, and particularly by Luke. Whereas Matthew and Mark mention widows only once (Matt. 28:13; Mark 12:40-43), Luke speaks of widows in 2:37; 4:25f; 7:11-17; 18:2-5; 20:47; 21:1-4, and continues this theme in Acts 6:1; 9:36-41. Luke, it appears, has a special interest in widows and women in general (Luke 1:26-38; 2:19, 33-38; Acts 1:14; 8:4,12; 16:13-15; 17:10; 18:2, et. al.) See I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), pp. 139ff. This may be the reason Luke records this parable while the other evangelists do not.
[32] J. D. Crossan, “Panel Discussion,” in Seminology and Parables, pp. 58, 59; J. D. M. Derrett, “Law in the New Testament: The Parable of the Unjust Judge,” New Testament Studies 18/2 (1972): 191. In response, Fitzmyer (p. 1178) cites examples from extrabiblical writings which describe judges in the same words as the parable, and it is not a compliment (cf. Josephus, Anitquities 10.5,2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 10.10,7; and Livy 22.3,4). In addition, Derrett argues that the widow bypassed the Jewish community court in order to go to the “secular” Roman court because eh knew she would get what she desired from the “secular” court but not from the community court. Thus the widow is the culprit in the parable. However, this is no mention as to what court is under discussion. To attempt to determine the exact nature of the court is speculative. Further, the Old Testament background is too strong to suppose that the widow is the culprit, and, if she were, this would be the only place in Luke where a widow is presented in a negative light. The words and motivation of the judge that he did not fear God ought to be enough to dispel the notion of his neutrality. Fitzmyer refers to Derrett’s discussion of Jewish and secular courts as “distracting trivia” upon which “the parable does not depend” (p. 1178).
[33] Catchpole, “Faith,” p. 88.
[34] Bauer, p. 74. H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, rev. H. S. James, 9th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), p. 155.
[35] Liddell and Scott, p. 504.
[36] Derrett, p. 187.
[37] J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, repr. 1974), p. 193.
[38] Derrett, p. 186, n. 1 reports that endikew has the “Septuagintal meaning, ‘avenge, take vengeance/punish’ (59 times as against ‘visit/punish’ meaning which appears 29 times).
[39] L. N. Dembitz, “Procedures in Civil Cases,” The Jewish Encyclopedia, ed. I. Singer (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1965), X: 204. He refers to Hoshen Misphat 15.1-2.
[40] A. B. Bruce, “The Synoptic Gospels,” in The Expositors Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans; repr. 1974), 1:597. Blass and Debrunner translated verse 5 in this fashion, emphasizing the widow’s persistence, paragraph 207.3: “in order that she may not gradually (pres. hupwpiaze) wear me out completely by her continual coming (pres.).” See Freed, p. 50.
[41] Bauer, p. 848; cf. Liddell and Scott, p. 1904.-
[42] Montefiore, 2:554.
[43] Konrad Weiss, “Hupwpiazw” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Friedrich, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1972), 8:590, 591. Weiss’ suggestion, however, is certainly out of character for the biblical as well as the Lukan picture of the widow.
[44] Derrett, pp. 190, 191. He notes that only one translation indicates this meaning in the text. The Rheims of 1582 reads: “lest at last she come and defame me.” At this point, Derrett’s suggestion seems the most plausible though one cannot rule out a metaphorical meaning like “pester” or “wear out.”
[45] How could a judge who had no care for men be concerned about his prestige in the community? Even a selfish man needs respect in order to function adequately within a community. What the judge fears is removal from his position. He evidently covets and wants to hold onto that position at all costs—even by granting the widow her request. It is a selfish motive at heart.
[46] J. A. Robertson, “The Parable of the Unjust Judge (Luke xviii.1-8),” Expository Times 38 (1926-27): 390.
[47] See on the use of ou me with the aorist subjunctive, Blass and Debrunner, paragraph 365.
[48] Marshall, Gospel, pp. 674-675.
[49] Catchpole, “Faith,” p. 92.
[50] Arndt and Gingrich record three major nuances of this word: (a) to wait patiently; (b) to forbear; and (c) to delay. Cf. Bauer, 489. Liddell and Scott, p. 1074: “to be longsuffering…to be slow to help…persevere…bear patiently.” For special studies of this particular term, see H. Riesenfeld, “Zu Makrothumei (Luke 18:7),” in Neutestamentliche Aufsatze: Festschrift fur Prof. Josef Schmid, eds. J. Blinzer, O. Kuss, and F. Mussner (Regensburg, 1963), pp. 214-217; H. Ljungvik, “Zur Erklarung einer Lukas-Stelle (Luke 18:7),” New Testament Studies 10/2 (1964): 289-294; G. De Ru, pp. 379-392; J. Horst, “makrothumia, makrothumew, makrothumws” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1967), 4:374-387; A. Wifstrand, “Lukas xviii.7,” New Testament Studies 11/1 (1964): 72-74.
[51] As given by H. Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, trans. H. de Jong (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1962), p. 538, n. 145.
[52] A. T. Robertson, 2:232.
[53] C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: University Press, 1959), p. 178.
[54] Fitzmyer, p. 1180.
[55] Morris, p. 263. Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1951), p. 448: “it helps to bring out still more sharply the contrast between the unjust judge who has no sympathy with the widow and God, who is full of compassion towards His elect and is long-suffering in dealing with their weaknesses.”
[56] Horst, IV, 381. The verb form of this term appears in the following passages in the New Testament: Matt. 18:26; Luke 18:7; 1 Cor. 13:4; 1 Thess. 5:14; Heb. 6:15; James 5:7,8; 2 Peter 3:9. The noun form appears in these passages: Rom.2:4, 9:22; 2 Cor. 6:6; Gal. 5:22; Eph. 4:2; Col. 1:11; 3:12; 1 Tim. 1:16; Col. 3:12; 2 Tim. 3:10; 4:2; Heb. 6:12; James 5:10; 1 Peter 3:15. Catchpole, pp. 92ff. analyzes many of these texts and includes also the following texts: Exod. 34:6; Num. 14:18; Psa. 86:15; 103:8; Joel 2:13; Nahum 1:3; Wisdom 15:1; Sirach 5:4. Wilfstrand and Riesenfeld both support the meaning of “delay” for this verb.
[57] Those who opt for (a) include Jeremias, p. 155; Ridderbos, p. 511; Geldenhuys, p. 447; and C. Spicq, “La Parable de la Veuve abstinee et du Juge inerte aux Decisions impromptus,” Revue Biblique 68/1 (1961): 81-85. Those who opt for (b) include: Delling, pp. 17ff.; C. E. B. Cranfield, “The Parable of the Unjust Judge and the Eschatology of Luke-Acts,” Scottish Journal of Theology 16/3 (1963): 297-301; and Linnemann, p. 188, n. 15.
[58] En tachei appears in the following places in the New Testament: Acts 12:7; 22:18; 25:4; Rom. 16:20; Rev. 1:1; 22:6.
[59] Morris, p. 264.
[60] Ridderbos, p. 511. Even if we should take the term in sense (b), we may give this reading, as does Cranfield, p. 300: “It is near, not in the sense that it must occur within a few months or years, but in the sense that it may occur at any moment.”
[61] B. B. Warfield, “The Importunate Widow and the Alleged Failure of Faith,” Expository Times 25 (1913-1914): 138. Cf. Todt, p. 99: “To keep on praying and not to lose heart is a distinguishing mark of faith.”
[62] Colpe, p. 435.
[63] Jeremias, p. 156; cf. Catchpole, p. 89.
[64] Cf. Spicq’s interpretation, pp. 68-90. D. Buzy, “Le Juge inique (Sain Luc. Xviii.1-8),” Revue Biblique 39 (1930): 378-391 also defends this double-theme motif as well as Marshall, Commentary, p. 671 and Fitzmyer, pp. 1176f.
[65] Bruce, 1:596. C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, rev. ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1961), pp. 1-59, 122, would argue that the presence of this delay concept in the parable would argue against its authenticity and this may be the reason Dodd never mentions the parable in his work. However, this theological presupposition has overridden the text instead of permitting the text to speak for itself. Concerning the delay-motif in the “Parousia-parables,” see Ridderbos, pp. 510ff and De Ru, pp. 379ff.
[66] Remember the note of “faithfulness” which will appear in Luke 19 with respect to the eschatological parable of the pounds.
-----------------------
JUDGE
WIDOW
GOD
DISCIPLES
Petition
Response
Petition
Response
Contrast
Comparison
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.