Persistent Petition: The Parable of the Unjust Judge

By Curtis Mitchell, Th.D.

Curtis Mitchell, B.A. (Biola University), B.D. (Talbot Theological Seminary), Th.M. (Western Seminary), Th.D. (Grace Theological Seminary). Dr. Mitchell taught at Biola University for nearly 25 years and has contributed scholarly articles to journals such as Bibliotheca Sacra and the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.

This parable, recorded in Luke 18:1–8, is generally associated with the parable of the Persistent Friend (Luke 11:5–13). If anything, the parable of the Unjust Judge teaches persisting in prayer even more surely and more graphically. Some men who deny persistence in prayer in the former parable freely acknowledge it here. [1] It is perhaps the most picturesque of our Lord’s parables on prayer.

Setting

Though a few men deny the immediate chronological sequence, [2] all recognize that this parable must be seen in the light of Christ’s discussion with His disciples in Luke 17:22–37. The Lord had been describing to His disciples the conditions that would prevail at His second advent. In that day, men will be persisting in the normal and usual habits of life, even as they did in the times of Noah and Lot. As in those days, indifference to God and immorality will prevail. Suddenly, this immoral indifference will be shattered by Christ’s second coming in judgment. Having instructed His disciples on the nature of these eschatological times, the Lord proceeds to give practical lessons to His followers. While the day may be characterized by indifference, those who choose to follow in His steps are exhorted to pray persistently.

Exegesis

The basic thrust of the parable is to show that though the heavens appear to be silent, and prayers seem to fall on deaf ears, God, much more surely than the unjust judge, will respond to persistent prayer. In short, “men ought always to pray and not faint” (Luke 18:1). Thus Christ, in a departure from His normal procedure, declares explicitly the reason for giving the parable before it was uttered. The word “ought” (πρὸ̀ τὸ δειν) indicates not merely the duty, but the necessity of persistence in prayer. [3] The word, “always” (πάντοτε), refers not to unending prayer so much as praying persistently in spite of temptation to cease praying through a delayed answer. [4] The negative aspect is presented by “and not lose heart” (μὴ ἐγκακειν). The word means “to languish—to give up through the weight of overpowering evil.” [5] Thus, Luke clearly states the importance of persistency in prayer at the outset. The parable illustrates and then applies the principle on the basis of a biographical progression.

The illustrative portion is centered around two characters, a certain judge and a needy widow. Because the illustration was drawn directly from a cultural situation of the day, it must have caused immediate attention. The notable character, herein introduced, is referred to as “a certain judge.” Edersheim states:

“He must therefore have been one of the Judges, or municipal authorities, appointed by Herod or the Romans—perhaps a Jew, but not a Jewish judge. Possibly, he may have been a police-magistrate, or one who had some function of that kind delegated to him” [6]

The Talmud speaks in very derogatory terms of these village judges and accuses them of ignorance, arbitrariness, and covetousness. For a dish of meat they would pervert justice. [7] Bruce describes this particular magistrate as one who “is an unprincipled, lawless tyrant, devoid of the sense of responsibility and/or every sentiment of human justice.” [8] The unfavorable character of the judge is obviously intended to point up the impossibility of anyone ever receiving consideration from such a person.

The petitioner in this parable who appears before the unjust judge is a very unlikely person to be prevailing. She was a widow, which in that day was almost synonymous to helplessness. Plummer says the woman had “neither a protector to coerce, nor money to bribe … ” [9] The only weapon possessed by the woman was persistent petition. This weapon is effectively utilized by the widow. Her action is set forth with the imperfect tense (ἤρχετο, “she came to him,” or better, “she kept on coming”). Thus not a single act, but a repeated continual coming is indicated. [10] This imperfect is made even more graphic by the comparable imperfect in verse four, where the Judge’s response to the woman’s persistent coming was “He would not” (οὐκ ἤθελεν, or “he kept not wanting”). The woman continued coming and the judge continued refusing. [11]

Eventually the woman’s persistence prevailed, as seen by the phrase “because this widow troubles me” (διά γε τὸ παρέχειν μοι κόπον). It was solely the woman’s persistence and nothing else that caused the judge to grant the request. [12] The purpose clause introduced by “lest” (ἵνα μὴ) furnishes an interesting insight into the reasoning in the mind of the judge. The Authorized Version renders it “lest by her continual coming she weary me” (v. 5). The word translated “weary” is hupopiazo (ὑπωπιάζω). It is a pugilistic term that means literally to “blacken one under the eyes.” [13] The expression, if taken literally, would mean that the judge became fearful that ultimately (εἰς τέλος) the persistent widow might actually attack him. [14] One commentary has concluded with the question, “May there not be a half-humorous fear expressed, lest the widow should lose patience and strike him?” [15] But most commentators take the word hupopiazo in a figurative sense meaning “to annoy greatly” or “to browbeat a person.” [16] This seems to tie in better with the present tenses of the words “coming” (ἐρχομένη) and “weary” (ὑπωπιάζῃ). [17] This being the situation the case for persistent prayer is even more enhanced.

Having illustrated the effectual nature of persistent prayer, the Lord applies the truth to His audience. This transition is done by the use of the words, “And the Lord said” (v. 6). Plummer contends that this indicates a pause, during which the audience considered the parable. [18] The Lord uses a vivid present to center the significance of the parable around the statement of the judge. Lenski contends “all else is subsidiary.” [19] The Lord uses the qualitative genitive “unjust” (ἀδικία) to characterize the judge. [20] He fixes the attention back to the statement of one who was of pernicious character.

Next, the Lord attempts to bring out what He considers significant (v. 7). The words, “But God” (ὁ δὲ θεὸ̀), receive emphasis by being placed before the interrogative words, “shall not?” (οὐ μη), which expects an affirmative answer. The conjunction “but” (δὲ) places God in contrast with the Unjust Judge. In the words of Lenski, “Because this contrast culminates in the judge of unrighteousness and the God of all righteousness, it runs through the entire parable … ” [21]

All that the judge was, God is not. All that the Lord is, the judge was not. The judge had no care for God or man. God, on the other hand, is exactly opposite. The corrupt judge was indifferent for a time to the petitions of the woman. Though he did acquiesce to the woman, it was solely for selfish reasons. This indifferent and unjust judge is placed over against the just and provident God. It is selfishness contrasted with holiness, unwillingness in contrast to eagerness.

But at one point both the judge and God are not in contrast. God, like the judge, does, at times, delay His answers to petitions. Note the promise is that God will avenge those “who cry out” (των βοώντων). By using the present participle of “cry out” the durative nature of the crying is emphasized. The word means “to cry” or “to cry out” (βοάω) and obviously indicates earnestness. The persistence of this “crying” is further emphasized by the words “day and night”; thus the avenging is promised by God in response to persistent urgent prayer.

The next clause, “though He bears long with them” (καὶ μακροθυμει ἐπ῎ αὐτοὶ), is often considered a very difficult passage. Lenski insists that one cause for this confusion is that some men attempt a wrong contrast, seeking to contrast (supposedly) the judge’s delay with the fact that God doesn’t delay at all. But the contrast is in the reason for the delays on the part of the judge and on the part of God. [22] The verb, “He bears long” (μακροθυμει), is in the present tense and means “to be long-suffering,” or “to endure patiently” with a secondary meaning of “delaying,” which in this case would be “delaying sympathy or help.” [23] The “them” (αὐτοὶ) most naturally refers to the “elect.” Vincent demonstrates quite effectively that in this instance “though” (καὶ) should be understood in the sense of “yet,” and he translates the entire passage: “Shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry unto him day and night; yet he delayeth help on their behalf.” [24] Vincent’s rendering, instead of contrasting God with the judge as to fact of delay, contrasts as to purpose of delay. The Unjust Judge delayed because of sinful indifference. God delays (or seems to do so) to perfect His children’s faith, or because His purpose is not ripe.

The answer to the hypothetical question, “shall not God avenge his own elect? …, is rendered absolutely certain by the emphatic use of the double negative οὐ μὴ.” [25] This affirmative answer becomes even more apparent with the next statement: “I tell you he will avenge them speedily” (v. 8). Scholars generally take the expression “speedily” (ἐν τάχει) in the sense of suddenness or swiftness. Though there appears to be a delay, yet when God avenges, it will be with swiftness. The eschatological implications of this are evident from the next statement: “Nevertheless, when the Son of Man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” (v. 8).

The Lord reverts back to the subject that formed the context for this parable on prayer. That discussion was concerned with the coming of the Son of Man in His second advent to the earth. In that day will there be faith on earth? There will be faith exercised, but it will not be the predominating feature of the age. Nevertheless, until that time or throughout the whole period of the Lord’s absence, “men ought always to pray and not to faint” (v. 1). Believers can do this because of who God is and how He acts on behalf of His own.

Conclusion

It seems that this parable, in light of its context and final statement, gives a practical prayer guide for a disciple of Christ on the earth during the entire time of the Lord’s absence. Morgan refers to it as “a revelation of the attitude of God towards human prayer.” [26] Believers are to occupy themselves with precise, earnest, and above all, persistent petition. They are to realize that though God seems to delay at times, He never does so out of selfish indifference. But above all, Christ would have us realize that persistent prayer will bring results. The parable represents the strongest possible teaching on persistence in prayer. This was contrary to the general Jewish prayer-concept that held God must not be wearied with incessant prayer. For this reason, some insisted that prayer should not be practiced more than three times a day, and hourly prayers were forbidden. [27]

Doctrinal Implications of Persistence

Possibly no aspect of prayer was more emphasized in the teachings of Jesus than persistence. Even men who recoil generally at the concept of persistent prayer are forced to acknowledge some element of it in Jesus’ teachings. The need to delete the idea of persistency arises from a mistaken concept of its role in prayer. Jesus warned against making long repetitious prayers motivated by the false concept that God could be made to hear by “much speaking.” Simply repeating a petition in rote fashion is not persistent petition, but rather vain repetition.

Perseverance in prayer is neither to wear God out nor to cause Him in exasperation to grant a request. The contrasts in this parable bear this out clearly. Though delays in prayer-answers are a reality, this parable clearly reveals that God is not like the Unjust Judge. He is willing to aid those who call upon Him. In the interpretation of this parable Jesus never once hints that perseverance can make God more willing to answer prayer.

Thus the reality of persistence cannot safely be denied in Scripture, but the precise function of it remains a theological problem. Persistency arose from a crisis situation, a crisis which evoked specific petition and sincere petition. The crux of prayer is seen to be petition—specific, sincere, and persistent.

Finally, Jesus taught the ultimate success of such praying. The door will be opened, the seeker will find, God will avenge His elect. Because of His character, the answer will be good things, which may not be in precise accord with the original petition in every case.

Notes

1. R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel (Columbus, Ohio: The Wartburg Press, 1946); p. 625.
2. Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, 4 Vols. (London: Deighton, Bell and Co., 1874); 1:612.
3. Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary On the Gospel According to St. Luke in The International Critical Commen tary (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913); p. 411.
4. A. B. Bruce, “The Synoptic Gospels.” The Expositor’s Greek Testament. 5 vols. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951); 1:596.
5. Alford 1:613.6 Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1943), 2:285.
6. Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1943). 2:285.
7. Ibid.
8. Alexander B. Bruce, The Parabolic Teaching of Christ (London: Hodder and Stroughton, 1895); p. 158.
9. Plummer, Luke; p. 412.
10. Siegfried Goebel, Parables of Jesus: A Methodical Exposition, trans. by Professor Banks (Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1913); p. 260.
11. Plummer, Luke; p. 412.
12. Lenski, Luke; p. 894.
13. F. W. Farrar, “The Gospel According to St. Luke” in The Cambridge Greek Testament (London: Cambridge Press, 1889); p. 328.
14. Such is the position of Godet, p. 201, who takes it as an exaggerated statement by the judge.
15. J. Willcook, A Homiletical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1896), p. 480.
16. Farrar, Luke, p. 328; cf. also Plummer, Luke, p. 413; A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, 2:331–32.
17. Plummer, Luke, p. 413.
18. Ibid.
19. Lenski, Luke, p. 894.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid., p. 895.
22. Lenski, Luke, p. 896.
23. Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in The New Testament, 4 vols. (Reprint)
24. Ibid.
25. Plummer, Luke, p. 413.
26. G. Campbell Morgan, The Parables and Metaphors of Our Lord (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1943), p. 232.
27. Plummer, Luke, p. 411.