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 Lukes
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 Lukes 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.

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 Scribners 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.
 Verses 6-8a. It is certain that 6a eipen de ho kurios ought to be regarded as
Lukes 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
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 dHistorie 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 Mans 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). Freeds 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
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 Lukes 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

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.
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
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.
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 widows demand and the judges response; and (d) the motive for
the judges eventual concession.

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.
 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 tothe 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

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 Derretts discussion of Jewish and secular courts as
distracting trivia upon which the parable does not depend (p. 1178).
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 cause35 or take up my case as anothers
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 judges 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 judges 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 wont 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

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.
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 widows 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) Gods vindication of the elect; (c) makrothumei; (d) en tachei; and (e) the
saying of the Son of Man.

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 widows 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, Derretts 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 costseven by
granting the widow her request. It is a selfish motive at heart.
 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 judges 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 Gods elect. Gods 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?

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 longsufferingto be slow to helppersevere
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.
 (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 Gods gracious
purpose.55 Horst aptly concludes: Gods makrothumei ep autois is for them a
necessary interval of grace which should kindle faith and prayers that move
mountains (17:6).56Verse 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

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.
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 Gods 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 Gods 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 earth62 (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 Gods compassion and love
for his elect are seen in contrast to the judges 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 Gods 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 Lukes 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. Lukes interpretation is, he concludes, mistaken. 63 However,

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.
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 judges response (vss. 4-5)
B Gods 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
widows 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:

64
Cf. Spicqs 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.
 JUDGE GOD
Contrast

Response

Petition
Response

Petition

WIDOW Comparison DISCIPLES

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 detre 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?

65
Bruce, 1:596. C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, rev. ed. (New York: Charles Scribners 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.