The widow that never gave up
(Continuing our series looking at prayer, in conversation with Crump’s Knocking on Heaven’s Door)
And he was telling them another parable for the necessity of them always to pray and never falter, saying, “There was a judge in some town, unfearing of God and disrespectful of people. There was a widow too in that town and she’d be coming to him all like, “Vindicate my cause against my adversary!”
And for a time he was unwilling, but afterwards he said to himself, “Even though I do not fear God and I do not respect people, and yet because this widow bothers me, I will vindicate her, so that in the end she doesn’t come and blacken my eye.”
And the Lord said, “Heed what the unjust judge says! Will not God render vindication for his elect, those calling out to him day and night, and he be slow in their case? I say to you that he will render their vindication in short order. BUT, when the Son of Man comes, will he find fidelity upon the earth?"
Luke 18.1-8 Seumas’ deliberately awkward translation
The other parable, even more frequently referenced to uphold the need for persistent prayer, is the widow and the judge in Luke 18.1-8. It seems to explicitly say so, in v1: "Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up." (NIV) And the parable seems to bear this reading out - the widow persists in coming again and again for justice, until finally the judge relents precisely because she pesters him. Surely, then, we are encouraged by this parable to persist in prayer until God answers our request?
The question needs a clearer focus, because "what, specifically, is the preferred alternative to quitting?"1. Is it petition generally, repeated petition, prayer generally? Will God accede to any demand, provided we have enough tenacity? And what does the unjust judge depict to us about God? What is the point of the comparison?
Context:
From Luke 17.20 through 18.8, Luke's material is focused on the return of the risen Lord. There are repeated references to the coming of Jesus (17.24, 18.8b), waiting, yearning, longing, (e.g. 17.22, 19.7) and a theme of suffering (17.22, 25; 18.7-8), as well as his coming quickly (18.8, 17-26-29). So the parable of 18.1-8 needs to be paired with the discourse of 17.20-37. That alone transforms our presenting question from one about prayer to one about waiting for the return of Christ.
In both sections, then, we have the long-suffering petitioner appealing for relief from injustice at the hands of an adversary. Our interpretive frame needs to be shaped by this eschatological reality.
The Parable:
Crump suggests we have three particular questions to address in interpreting the parable:
How does the judge portray God?
What motivates the judge to finally respond in v5?
How do we understand the rhetorical question in v7?
The first is relatively easy. As with the parable of the midnight visitor, this is a contrast. If even a judge like this will relent, how much more can God (who isn't like the judge) be trusted to faithfully and justly respond to prayers? As an aside, let me point out just how often these parables and teachings about prayer point us primarily to the character of the one to whom we pray. So often the lesson is not a lesson about prayer itself, but about God's goodness, graciousness, approachability, and fidelity.
Crump doesn't entirely go here, but I will - given that one knows God as a faithful God who hears prayers, does not ignore the cries of his people, delivers justice, what then do you do when he doesn't appear to answer prayers for justice, doesn't appear to act to uphold what is right and good? Here, I think, we need to bring in the whole slew of witnesses, the psalms at length, the wisdom literature of the OT. The existential crisis that unanswered prayer creates is real, but its answer is found in recognising that God's righteousness and faithfulness and justice is not, ultimately, impugned by his apparent slowness to heed and respond. The psalms are a study in this conundrum.
So, what does cause the judge to intervene, or God? The verb here is ὑπωπιάζω, which in broader Greek literature has a more literal meaning of to strike someone under they eye, or give them a black eye. Many translations opt for something like 'wear me out', a relatively weakened metaphorical rendering, that doesn't have strong attestation elsewhere, though it is followed in some ancient translations. ESV goes for "beat me down", which is probably getting towards it. NIV 2011 has "attack me", which expresses the idea that the judge fears the widow will eventually reach the point of physical violence. Nolland, and many researchers, land on "utterly shame me", understanding the violence to be a blow to the face designed to cause public shame rather than tangible damage. But the judge is depicted as being relatively 'immune' to public shame, and so Bock takes it as being worn down emotionally. The verb is difficult! Crump, for his part, follows Nolland, and understands it as shame - the judge has reason to be ashamed and so eventually acts to put an end to his own embarrassment and to uphold his reputation. I am not entirely convinced at this point, precisely because of v4.
The rhetorical question in v7 is equally difficult, as demonstrated by Marshall offering nine possible interpretations! This depends upon whether (a) μακροθυμεῖ is taken to mean 'wait patiently', 'forbear', or 'be slow'; (b) whether we take it as two sentences or one; (c) whether 'them' refers to opponents or the elect. The first half is straightforward in my opinion, "Will not God render vindication for his elect, those calling out to him day and night?" Crump takes the second half like this, "even though he is slow to act for them/even though he keeps them waiting?" And, on reflection, I think that's the right combination of interpretations for the context.
There are two main characters in this parable, and so like a binary star system, we have two primary lessons circling around each other. It's here that Crump brings in the psalms, which I mentioned earlier. The unjust judge eventually intervenes to uphold his public honour. God, too, seems to be slow to the point of failure to answer the cries of the faithful. He is maligned by the wicked, who think he does not see, does not care, and does not act. The psalms nonetheless uphold his honour, and declare that he does, and will, act. But "his timing is his own", it will not be cajoled. In this, the widow and the Psalmist are alike - they persevere in confidence that their plea will, eventually be heard.
And so we come to the conclusion. If it's certain, as Jesus and the Scriptures remind us, that God will indeed act to (finally) vindicate his own and himself, the question is not "will God act faithfully and justly", but "when he does, will he find faith?" or, "will he find people faithfully waiting?"
This, perhaps, is the key to 'unlocking' this parable, if I dare use that language. It is a call and encouragement to perseverance in prayer. But not because persistence makes prayer more efficacious. It's because perseverance in prayer is a sign of persevering faith in God. Let's give Crump the last word here:
Will I continue to bring my life before God in prayer when all tangible, empirical - and even all personal, experiential - evidence demands that I abandon prayer as worthless?2
Crump, KOHD, 78
Crump, KOHD, 88