What Is The Meaning Of “Faith” In Luke 18:8?

By David A. Mappes

[David A. Mappes is Associate Professor of Theology and Bible Exposition, Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania.]

This article examines Jesus’ statement in Luke 18:8, “When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth.” Was He referring to faith as doctrinal knowledge (truth assertions about the content of the faith)? Or did He refer to His disciples’ being found faithful to Him when He returns?[1] Warfield writes that one should “begin by determining the sense which is to be put upon the term ‘faith’ here—or ‘the faith,’ . . . since it has the article.”[2] While Plummer acknowledges several views regarding this articular noun (such as “faith that perseveres in prayer” or faith as “loyalty to Himself”),[3] he argues that “the faith” in question refers to “faith in Jesus as the Messiah and Saviour.”[4] Also Stein notes that the “use of the article before ‘faith,’ i.e., ‘the faith,’ suggests that this question should be translated ‘Will he find the faith?’ rather than ‘Will he find faithfulness?’”[5]

If the construction “the faith” (τὴν πίστιν) refers to a body of fixed doctrine[6] that has been revealed to the church and that the church is to preserve against heresy,[7] this is similar to other New Testament expressions such as Jude 3, where believers are commanded to contend for the faith, or Paul’s reference to “sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 4:6)[8] or “traditions” (2 Thess. 2:15).[9] If “the faith” in Luke 18:8 refers to a body of truth, then expositors must look carefully at how Luke used this articular noun in the context of the parable in verses 1-8 to determine which component(s) of doctrine might be included.

On the other hand some say that Jesus used this articular noun to refer to the act of believing or to belief as evidenced in faithfulness in the Christian life. Freed believes the parable focuses only on matters of prayer without any notion of the content of faith. “To speculate about the content of faith in 18.8 . . . is to miss the point. . . . Persistent prayer is evidence of faith, whether or not any specific content is intended.”[10] Catchpole discusses four views of τὴν πίστιν in Luke 18:8: (a) a type of objective orthodox doctrine, (b) faithful confession in times of persecution, (c) faithful adherence to a future eschatological intervention by God, and (d) general acceptance of the message of Christ.[11]

If “the faith” is a technical expression referring to a fixed body of truth, then that meaning in Luke 18:8 is unique to Luke’s Gospel. The word “faith” is used eleven times in Luke. It is used with the article in Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:8, 42; and 22:32 and with a demonstrative adjective in 7:9. Other appearances of “faith” without an article occur in 17:5-6. In each of these cases the context shows that “the faith” cannot refer to a fixed body of truth. Marshall writes that “the faith” in Luke 18:8 “signifies faithfulness, expressed in unfailing prayer.”[12] Alford agrees. He writes that τὴν πίστιν refers to “faith which has endured in prayer without fainting.”[13] Bock argues that Luke uses “faith” throughout his Gospel to refer to the act of being faithful and that all “occurrences of these words suggest a reliance on another to provide something one cannot provide for himself.”[14] Luke in his Gospel did not use this term as a technical expression of a body of truth.[15] However, this nontechnical use of “the faith” does not preclude Luke from using the expression to include a doctrinal component(s), though only an examination of the context can determine the nuances of the term.[16]

This article maintains that “the faith” in Luke 18:8 refers to the act of trust or faithfulness (as evidenced in prayer) and the doctrinal truth that Jesus will return. Both elements are taught through the interplay of the characters in the parable of the judge and the widow, along with Jesus’ comments on the parable.

Contextual Setting Of The Parable

Ryle argued that this parable’s purpose is to teach that prayer is the secret of keeping faith.[17] He suggests that the noun “faith” refers to both the actions of faith such as prayer and vigilance, and to doctrinal content (anticipating and expecting the Lord to return and to vindicate the righteous and judge the unrighteous).[18] Also Meecham points out that “the faith” is associated with the return of the Son of Man. He writes, “Will the faith (that God will vindicate His people) be found on the earth at the coming of the Son of Man?”[19]

Catchpole agrees as he suggests that τὴν πίστιν combines personal righteousness and eschatological awareness and that the latter is related to the Son of Man sayings.[20] Catchpole emphasizes that “πίστις could quite easily express that total relationship to Jesus which was grounded in response to his word.”[21]

Jesus’ point in this parable was to encourage His followers not to lose heart in the midst of injustice but to keep praying for temporal justice as they anticipate ultimate justice at the Lord’s return. The context (Luke 17:20-37) emphasizes the doctrinal truth of Jesus’ second coming when He will bring final vindication.

At least one-third of Luke’s Gospel has material not found in either Matthew or Mark. Most of that material is what is normally referred to as the infancy narrative, the passion narratives, and several parables.[22] Interestingly some of these parables are in the section that describes Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem where suffering and death awaited Him. Many of them call for a righteous life with appropriate expectation of the coming kingdom. Bock writes, “As Jesus headed toward the place of suffering, He instructed the disciples on what God desired of them and what He planned for them. When Jesus condemned the current ways of official piety, He issued a call to new piety and prepared them for His absence.”[23] Hence these parables function to help prepare the disciples to live appropriately between Jesus’ ascension and second coming.

Jesus’ return will not be hidden or secretive; it will be global and clearly apparent for all to see. His coming will be like lightning that illuminates the sky (17:24). Luke intentionally contrasted the veiled glory of Jesus who suffered and died at the hands of His own generation (v. 25) with His future glorious, unveiled return that all will see. The certainty of His return should prevent His disciples from being misled by rumors or overcome with discouragement over injustices. In His return He will bring about ultimate justice.

This sense of ultimate justice is implied by the phrase, “Son of Man,”[24] a term Jesus often used of Himself. In 21:27 Jesus linked this title with Daniel 7:13-14, which describes the Messiah (cf. Luke 9:26; 17:26, 30). While the phrase “Son of Man” pertains to different aspects of Jesus’ ministries (depending on the context), in Luke 18:8 the phrase portrays Jesus as having ultimate messianic authority to bring about global judgment and ultimate deliverance. The term “Son of Man” occurs sixty-nine times in the Synoptic Gospels and in each case Jesus used the title of Himself; no one else addressed Him with this title. The use of the title “Son of Man” has been grouped into three categories: (a) those that speak of Jesus as present on earth with authority and power, (b) those that speak of Jesus in His humanity and experiencing suffering, and (c) those that refer to Jesus in His future return in glory (with Luke 18:8 being an example of the third group).[25]

The parable in Luke 18:1-8 highlights the need for appropriate expectations in life with appropriate response of prayer prior to the Lord’s return. Jesus could not have created a starker contrast: a defenseless widow with no standing in the community and a local unrighteous judge. “Both characters appear as prototypes . . . [and] as occupants of different ends of the continuum of power and privilege.”[26] Weaver notes this stark contrast. “Within the biblical world it would be difficult to find two characters more diametrically opposed. If the judge is the symbol of power and authority, the widow symbolizes powerlessness and vulnerability. Within a patriarchal world, where women depend on men for protection, support, and a place to belong, the widow has none of these.”[27]

In the Bible the term “judge” connotes power and authority. Local judges were appointed to adjudicate God’s laws, which included protection of widows. God Himself is described as “a father of the fatherless and a judge for the widows” (Ps. 68:5; cf. 82:3-4). Righteous, faithful living before the Lord would be evidenced in conduct that reflected His character in providing justice for widows. For this reason the prophets repeatedly stated that Israel displayed their lack of godliness and covenant faithfulness when they neglected their widows (Isa. 1:22-23; 10:1-2; Jer. 7:4-16).

The judge in Luke 18 was completely unlike the judges prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 16:18-20: “You shall appoint for yourselves judges and officers in all your towns which the LORD your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous. Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, that you may live and possess the land which the LORD your God is giving you.”

When Jehoshaphat appointed judges throughout Judah, he said, “Let the fear of the LORD be upon you; be very careful what you do, for the LORD our God will have no part in unrighteousness, or partiality or the taking of a bribe” (2 Chron. 19:7). Hence the judge in Luke 18 contrasts sharply with the Old Testament standards; he “is exactly how a judge should not be.”[28]

This judge did not fear God or man (18:2), and the widow needed “legal protection” from an “opponent” (v. 3). Thus readers immediately wonder if the widow will ever receive justice. The judge was no doubt a Jew, for the Romans allowed the Jews to govern themselves.

As one “who did not fear God,” this judge was a godless, indifferent man of power. “The judge is described in a manner that undermines all confidence that one could look to him for justice: he answers neither to the directives of God nor to the patent needs of those around him.”[29] Some argue that the double characterization of “not fearing God or respecting man” has a proverbial meaning that “this man does not take the judgment of God seriously.”[30] If this is correct, then the parable has even more import in view of the eschatological overtone of the certainty of God’s future judgment. This phrase describing the judge suggests he was not a religious man. He apparently felt so secure in his own use of authority and power that he had no fear of God or man. The judge thus personifies the very people Jesus had earlier used as examples (Noah’s generation, Lot’s wife and town) who were unjust, who did not fear God, and who mocked judgment (17:26-29).

Widows, aliens, and orphans constituted a group who should be cared for and protected. The Mosaic Law made explicit provisions for them. In many ways widows were the personification of dependence, helplessness, and vulnerability. Some provisions for widows are stated in Deuteronomy 10:18; 14:28-29; 24:17-22; 26:12; and Malachi 3:5.

It is interesting to note that a concern for the widow, the orphan, and the poor is permanently woven into the fabric of those crucial sections dealing with the covenant made between God, the sovereign, and His people, Israel, both in the covenant code of Sinai and its renewal before entering the land of Canaan. In Exodus 22:21-24, 23:6, the widow, the orphan, and the poor fall under the protection of God Himself. This is reiterated in Deuteronomy, where God is represented as the supreme judge who has the interest of these elements of society at heart (10:18 ff).[31]

The widow in Luke 18 is someone with no standing in the community and no family member to argue her case.[32] Derrett argues that a widow could go to court without an advocate only if she was in a desperate situation.[33] “Consequently to show her face in a public place was in itself a breach of etiquette that only the poorest could afford.”[34] Jesus did not explain why the widow needed protection. Perhaps she was like the widows mentioned in Luke 20:47 when Jesus accused the authorities of devouring “widows’ houses,” that is, taking unfair advantage of widows for financial gain.

God is not like this judge. He takes seriously His Law and He acts with justice, as the parable ultimately shows. The contrast between what the judge was to do and what he failed to do is amplified when one considers the plight of the widow. Apparently she had no other recourse but to take her case continually to this unjust judge. The verb ἤρχετο (18:3) serves as an iterative imperfect of ἔρχομαι to highlight the widow’s persistence; the judge was equally unwilling, as the imperfect tense οὐκ ἤθελεν (v. 4) indicates.

Why did God not immediately intervene? Why did He allow such injustice to continue when He clearly made lawful provision for widows? The answer is not given, though the parable does teach that justice will ultimately prevail. Mitchell points up the differences between this unjust judge and God as Judge.

All that the judge is, God is not. All that the Lord is, the judge is not. The judge had no care for God or man. God, on the other hand, is exactly the opposite. The judge was selfish; our God is loving. The judge was unjust; our God is just. While a basic contrast exists between God and the judge, at one point there is a similarity between the activity of the judge and the activity of our God, and that is the fact of delayed response. God, like the judge, does at times delay responding to the cries of his children. The assurance [is] that God will indeed bring about justice.[35]

While the unjust judge delayed his response, God’s delays are for different (and often unstated) reasons. The judge “delayed out of selfish indifference, but this is never why God delays—hence the contrast.”[36] When “God delays it is the tarrying of love.”[37]

Luke emphasized that between the first and second comings of Jesus, the world will be filled with indifference, injustice, and misuse and abuse of power (17:26-30). Therefore His followers must pray persistently, like the widow who pleaded with the judge. Bruce emphasizes that the parable teaches the power of perseverance in the spiritual life.[38]

Literary Development Of The Parable

The conclusion of this parable in Luke 18:8 forms an inclusio with 17:20, which refers to the Pharisees asking Jesus “when the kingdom of God will come.” Though Jesus was being questioned by the Pharisees, in His answer He spoke primarily to the disciples (v. 22), and He continued to speak to them (18:1). This entire section of 17:20-18:8 has eschatological overtones, which culminate with what the Son of Man may find when He returns to earth.

Jesus introduced the parable to teach the disciples to pray and not lose heart (18:1). Interestingly only here and in verse 9 did Luke preface a parable by noting its meaning.[39] The parable itself (vv. 2-5) includes the character of the widow, the character of the judge, the widow-judge relationship, and the judge’s motive for eventually conceding to her request. Then in verses 6-8 Jesus applied the parable.

The two characters in the parable create both a comparison and a contrast. “On the one hand, based on an argument from the lesser to the greater, we hear in Jesus’ words an affirmation of the faithfulness of God: He will assuredly act with dispatch on behalf of the elect. On the other, we see in the widow’s action a model of perseverance in the midst of wrong. . . . These two motifs [are] the certainty of God’s justice and the call for resolute faithfulness in anticipation of that certainty.”[40]

The widow’s persistent refusal to lose heart is an example for believers not to be discouraged as they await the return of Christ. In an age of injustice disciples are not to lose heart (μὴ ἐγκακεῖν, v. 1) but are to continue to pray (δεῖν πάντοτε προσεύχεσθαι). The present active infinitive δεῖν (“ought; it is necessary”) points here to the need for prayer. It “is used to indicate all types of necessity.”[41] The two present infinitives δεῖν and προσεύχεσθαι are in contrast to the present infinitive of not losing heart (μὴ ἐγκακεῖν). “In the most desperate circumstances, they must continue to ask doggedly and intensely and never desist.”[42] And “during the wait for deliverance . . . letting up and weakening are not permitted.”[43]

“Losing heart” appears only here in Luke and five times in Paul’s epistles. It can refer to growing weary or tired (Gal. 6:9; 2 Thess. 3:13) or being in despair (2 Cor. 4:1, 16; Eph. 3:13).[44] Freed argues that “losing heart” may be too passive a way to understand Jesus’ words; so he suggests that the statement has in view that Jesus’ disciples should not behave carelessly.[45] However, since the widow’s persistence is portrayed as the opposite of losing heart, the verb suggests languishing or giving up.[46] Gooding writes, “To cease praying would be to call in question the very character of God.”[47]

This sense of praying for God’s intervention is common in Luke’s writings (Luke 11:2; 22:42; Acts 4:25-30; 12:5). By emphasizing God’s ability to bring about both temporal and ultimate justice, Jesus was reminding His disciples that if they do not focus on Him and His return, they will indeed lose heart. As Bock observes, “We are to pray earnestly for the vindication of our testimony in the world and our eventual full redemption by the hand of God.”[48] Thus Luke emphasized that Jesus’ disciples are to seek justice in this age and also live with the knowledge that justice will be executed when the Son of Man returns. Thus the widow serves as an example of how believers should respond to injustices.

The judge, on the other hand, is portrayed only in a negative light, and God is in contrast to the unrighteous judge. “Jesus is not teaching that God is reluctant to answer our prayers or that we have to badger God until he finally caves in to our requests. Jesus is not saying God is like that judge; rather, he is drawing a contrast between the two. In technical terms, he is using the classic argument from lesser to greater.”[49]

If the “lesser case must be carried out for an insignificant widow . . . then a greater case [God’s final justice] must be valid.”[50] Reid observes that while this judge was supposed to represent God and His Law, “his actions are totally contrary to the character of God, who is not deaf to the cry of the widow and who judges justly.”[51] She concludes that the final incongruity between these two characters in the parable “is that a powerful judge trembles in fear that a seemingly poor, defenseless widow”[52] will injure his reputation. Reid argues that the judge was trembling because she interprets the subjunctive verbal phrase “wear me out” (ὑπωπιάζῃ) in verse 5 as a metaphor. She correctly posits that this verb literally means “to strike or hit me under the eye.”[53] She adds that this term was a boxing term that then came to mean injury.[54] Evans notes that the literal rendering “hitting me under the eye” connotes figuratively “to blacken the face,” “besmirch one’s character,” or “wear out [a person] completely.”[55] Derrett argues that the verb here is best taken as “blacken the face,” which effectively means the prestige of the judge was diminished.[56] While neither Jesus nor Luke mentioned how the widow would diminish the judge’s reputation, one reasonable suggestion is that her persistent appeal would prove he was not performing his task. Whether the verb ὑπωπιάζῃ means wearing the judge out or damaging the judge’s reputation, the parable implies the judge’s lack of true character.

The literal rendering of this verb may suggest a bit of humor in that this “uncaring judge, who fears neither God nor man, finally relents, lest he suffer violence at the hand of a widow.”[57] The precise rendering of the verb ὑπωπιάζῃ is not critical to the discussion, since either the literal or the metaphorical rendering points up a contrast between this judge and God.[58]

Jesus’ point is that if faithful persistence was effective with an unjust judge, how much more will faithful persistence be effective with God, the righteous Judge. Thus “the force of the parable lies in the contrast between this judge and the just and righteous God.”[59] God will indeed answer believers’ prayers in His perfect time.

As Ryken notes, while parables are intended to be simple, they are simultaneously profound.[60] While Jesus’ parables “have simple plots focusing on one main event,”[61] that simplicity does not remove complexity of characters or complexity of comparison, nor are His parables without “legitimate secondary or related themes.”[62] The very intention of parables is to invite comparison between the archetype in the parable and the listener to the story. The parable “creates meaning by inviting the hearer to participate in that creation,”[63] and Jesus’ parables are designed to “challenge the fortified areas of our lives.”[64] Thus the unjust judge, who is completely unlike God, and the widow, who personifies faithful persistence, are used by Jesus to communicate the importance of not losing heart.

Recognizing this complexity of comparison and contrast between the unjust judge and the persistent widow helps answer the question of what Jesus referred to in His question, “Will He find faith on the earth?” If the focus of the parable is on only the widow, then the message tends to emphasize the faithfulness of the widow, as illustrated in her praying and not losing heart. However, by focusing on both the widow and the judge, the parable teaches (a) that believers should not lose heart and (b) that the reason is that God is not like the unjust judge. When this widow-judge relationship is compared with the disciple-God relationship and is understood in association with Jesus’ statement about the Son of Man’s return, then the notion of “the faith” includes both faithfulness as well as doctrinal knowledge of His return. In light of unjust treatment (17:22-37), 18:7-8 emphasizes “both the certainty and the imminence of vindication.. . . The question is not When? or Where? But, given the present activity of God and its promised, certain consummation, How will people respond?”[65]

Hicks illustrates this widow-judge relationship in contrast to the disciple-God relationship by noting this literary structure.

A The activity of the widow (v. 3)

B The judge’s response (vv. 4-5)

B´ God’s contrasting response (vv. 6b–8a)

A´ The faith of the disciples (v. 8b)[66]

Since the unjust judge is the questionable character and yet the widow’s persistence is honored in spite of the judge’s hostile relationship to her, how much more should the disciples be certain that God will vindicate them, since He is completely unlike the unjust judge.[67] The uncertainty of the unjust judge is used as a literary device to illustrate the certainty of future vindication.

Hicks illustrates this complex comparison by means of the following diagram.[68]

Conclusion

The widow’s persistence in seeking justice from the unjust judge is portrayed by the Son of Man as the kind of faith to be exercised (18:8). Believers are to pray persistently, just as this widow exercised persistence. Jesus was not speaking of any type of faith but specifically “the faith” as demonstrated by the widow in the parable. Bock argues that Jesus wants believers to look to Him for vindication and that He “is calling for a faith that perseveres in allegiance to Jesus.”[69]

Despite delay, ultimate divine vindication will occur (18:8). Jesus wanted the disciples to understand that when He returns, He Himself will balance the scales of justice. Jesus’ exercising ultimate vindication is seen in the contrast between the unjust judge and the just God. Jesus’ disciples are to exercise “the faith,” that is, to exercise faithfulness as they anticipate His return. The doctrinal content in the words “the faith” includes the visible return of Jesus, the Son of Man, in all His messianic glory.[70]

The focus then of the parable is on praying without losing heart, and this praying pertains to God’s certain justice, which the Son of Man will bring at His return.[71]

Notes

1. The question is not whether objective faith as doctrinal knowledge exists and is knowable but rather if that notion of doctrinal knowledge is at issue in Luke 18:8. “Certainly our personal faith is grounded in the objective faith revealed in Scripture regarding the Person and work of God in Christ. This objective body of truth is knowable to the extent that it is fully discernible, definable, and preservable and that it can adjudicate counter views. Thus the objective faith stands as a criterion over all of mankind” (David A. Mappes, “The Nobility and Knowability of Truth: Part 1,” Journal of Ministry and Theology 12 [spring 2009]: 28, italics his). For more on “the faith” as propositional verbal truth assertions as well as the importance of living faithfully see David A. Mappes, “A New Kind of Christian: A Review,” Bibliotheca Sacra 161 (July–September, 2004): 289-303; idem, “The Nobility and Knowability of Truth: Part 1,” 64-105; and idem, “The Nobility and Know-ability of Truth: Part 2,” Journal of Ministry and Theology 13 (fall 2009): 1-22.
2. B. B. Warfield, “The Importunate Widow and the Alleged Failure of Faith,” Expository Times 25 (1913-1914): 137.
3. Alfred Plummer, The Gospel according to S. Luke, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1922), 415.
4. Ibid.
5. Robert H. Stein, Luke, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1992), 447.
6. “Fixed doctrine” refers to faith as “that which is believed, body of faith/ belief/ teaching,” and this “objectivizing of the term . . . is found as early as Paul” and “is interpreted this way by many” (Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000], 820). Examples of this objective sense of faith are in Romans 1:5; Galatians 1:23; 3:23-25; 1 Timothy 1:19; 4:1, 6; 6:10, 21; and 2 Timothy 2:18.
7. In general the use of an article conceptualizes, identifies, and makes definite the noun it precedes. It is often used to stress identity of a class or quality. Thus it may “distinguish one entity (or class) from another, identify something as known or unique . . . or simply point out” (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 209-10).
8. “Sound doctrine” denotes a fixed body of doctrine—a fixed, orthodox confession of faith that believers have received and which is to be preserved against heresy (see Klaus Wegenast, “διδασκαλία,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978], 3:770-71).
9. The term “tradition” focuses on content handed down (see Klaus Wegenast, “παραδίδωμι,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 3:772– 74.
10. Edwin D. Freed, “The Parable of the Judge and the Widow,” New Testament Studies 33 (January 1987): 56.
11. David R. Catchpole, “The Son of Man’s Search for Faith (Luke XVIII 8b),” Novum Testamentum 19 (1977): 86.
12. I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 676.
13. Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, 1868; reprint, Chicago: Moody, 1958), 1:613.
14. Darrell L. Bock, “A Theology of Luke-Acts,” in A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 133.
15. However, Luke did use τὴν πίστιν throughout Acts to refer to a fixed body of truth or to describe Christianity as a movement. Of its fifteen occurrences in Acts, at least five times the phrase describes a body of truth to be believed (Acts 6:7; 13:8; 14:22, 27; 16:5).
16. Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1989), and Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), discuss the use of technical expressions in the New Testament.
17. J. C. Ryle, Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospel: Luke 1-10 (reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 258.
18. Ibid., 251-65.
19. Henry G. Meecham, “The Parable of the Unjust Judge,” Expository Times 57 (1945-1946): 306.
20. Catchpole, “The Son of Man’s Search for Faith,” 88.
21. Ibid.
22. Mark Allen Powell, What Are They Saying about Luke? (New York: Paulist, 1989), 34.
23. Bock, “A Theology of Luke–Acts,” 99.
24. Most evangelical scholars agree that this phrase comes from Daniel 7 and carries authoritative messianic overtures. For an overview of how various scholars view this title see Ransom Marlow, “The Son of Man in Recent Journal Literature” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (January 1966): 20-30.
25. Julius Scott Jr., “Son of Man,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. Walter Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker 1996), 411.
26. Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 639.
27. Dorothy Jean Weaver, “Luke 18:1-8,” Interpretation 56 (July 2002): 318.
28. John Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1993), 871. Catchpole concludes that while in the end this judge “does act in the right way, he does so for the wrong reason. . . . The judge knows the attitude of God to such a situation and the parable twice indicates a sharp differentiation between God’s attitude and that of the judge. Equally he [the judge] is faced with a human situation of need and oppression which should have called forth caring concern for others, but this moves him not one inch. Only selfish concern to protect himself will jerk him into action” (“The Son of Man’s Search for Faith,” 89).
29. Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34, 871.
30. Green, The Gospel of Luke, 639.
31. Richard D. Patterson, “The Widow, the Orphan, the Poor in the Old Testament and the Extra-Biblical Literature,” Bibliotheca Sacra 130 (July–September 1973): 228. Elsewhere Patterson notes that the protection and provision of widows was prevalent in many Semitic law codes. “In ancient Sumer, the protection of the widow, the orphan, and the poor is detailed in two well-known law codes, that of Urukagina of Lagash in the twenty-fifth century B.C. and that of Ur Nammu, the founder of the so-called third dynasty of Ur in the twenty-first century B.C. The most famous of the law codes of Mesopotamia, that of Hammurapi in the eighteenth century B.C., builds upon the concepts of its Sumerian precursors” (ibid., 226). Regarding the Babylonian and Egyptian situation he writes that in “the Babylonian legal stipulations and wisdom literature the care of the widow, the orphan, and the poor is enjoined, since the ideal king, as the living representative of the god of justice, the sun god Samas, is expected to care for the oppressed and needy elements of society” (ibid.), and that in ancient Egypt “the protection of the widow, the orphan, and the poor was the continual boast of the beneficent king. Thus, Meri-kare of the First Intermediate Period is instructed by his father, Khety III, that the good king does not oppress the widow or confiscate the property of the orphan” (ibid.). Thus care for the widow was even more fully developed in the Old Testament than in other law codes, and this concern for widows caried over into the New Testament.
32. Luke addressed the matter of care for widows throughout his writings (2:37; 4:25-26; 7:12; 18:3, 5; 20:47; 21:2-3; Acts 6:1; 9:39, 41).
33. Derrett, “The Law in the New Testament,” 188.
34. Ibid.
35. Curtis Mitchell, “The Case for Persistence in Prayer,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27 (June 1984): 164.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.
38. Alexander Balmain Bruce, “The Synoptic Gospels,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 1:596.
39. John Mark Hicks, “The Parable of the Persistent Widow,” Restoration Quarterly 33 (1991): 213.
40. Green, The Gospel of Luke, 637.
41. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961), 892.
42. Ceslas Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, trans. and ed. James D. Ernest (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 1:398.
43. Ibid., 1:399.
44. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 273.
45. Freed, “The Parable of the Judge and the Widow,” 40.
46. Alford, The Greek Testament, 1:612.
47. David Gooding, According to Luke: A New Exposition of the Third Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 293.
48. Darrell L. Bock, Luke, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 459.
49. Donald Penny, “Persistence in Prayer: Luke 18:1-8,” Review & Expositor 104 (fall 2007): 740.
50. Craig Evans, Luke, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990), 267.
51. Barbara E. Reid, “Beyond Petty Pursuits and Wearisome Widows: Three Lukan Parables,” Interpretation 56 (July 2002): 291.
52. Ibid.
53. Ibid.
54. Ibid.
55. Evans, Luke, 269. See also Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 1043, for discussion of these various meanings of this term.
56. Derrett, “The Law in the New Testament,” 190. Derrett correctly argues that the notion of bruise and simple insult is not the point. He writes that the clause “‘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.’ . . . This very ancient Asian idea goes back to a time when the words for the colours were few; the sallow skin turned ash-grey at the moment of realization of disgrace” (ibid.). Marshall gives an extended discussion on this issue and concludes that while Old Testament parallels do not support Derrett’s view (which Derrett acknowledges), later history of the word does support his view. “The judge’s fear is that the woman’s continual nagging will wear him out or get him a bad name for refusing to hear entreaties.” He concludes that the evidence favors the judge receiving a bad name; thus he suggests the rendering, “lest by keeping on coming she blackens my face’ “(The Gospel of Luke, 673).
57. Evans, Luke, 269.
58. Hicks correctly argues that the judge may have been afraid of losing his prominent position, and so he acted out of fear. “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 of the Persistent Widow,” 218).
59. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel, 892.
60. Leland Ryken, How to Read the Bible as Literature (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 139.
61. Ibid., 140.
62. Ibid., 149.
63. James H. Bailey and Lyle D. Vander Broek, Literary Forms in the New Testament: A Handbook (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), 111.
64. Ibid., 112.
65. Green, The Gospel of Luke, 642-43.
66. Hicks, “The Parable of the Persistent Widow,” 222.
67. Ibid. “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? . . . [Jesus] encourages them by noting that even though there may be a delay in his coming, God will certainly vindicate his elect” (ibid.). Marshall also advances this double comparison (The Gospel of Luke, 673).
68. Hicks, “The Parable of the Persistent Widow,” 222.
69. Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 1456.
70. Bock writes that the disciples are “to look forward to the day when Jesus will come and defend his elect by exercising righteous judgment over the whole earth” (ibid.).
71. Ibid., 1447.