CTSJ 2:3 (Winter 1996)

Persistent Petition
(The Parable of the Unjust Judge)

Curtis Mitchell, Th.D. *
[*Editors note: 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 18:18, is generally associated with the
parable of the Persistent Friend (Luke 11:513). 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 Lords 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 Christs discussion with His disciples
in Luke 17:2237. 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 Christs 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

1
R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Lukes 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.
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 ( ) indicates not merely the duty, but the
necessity of persistence in prayer
3
The word, always (), 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 ( ). The word means to languishto 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 Romansperhaps 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

3
Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary On the Gospel According to St. Luke in
The International Critical Commen tary (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1913); p. 411.
4
A. B. Bruce, The Synoptic Gospels. The Expositors 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.
persistent petition. This weapon is effectively utilized by the widow. Her action is
set forth with the imperfect tense (, 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 Judges response to the womans persistent coming was He
would not ( , or he kept not wanting). The woman continued
coming and the judge continued refusing.
11
Eventually the womans persistence prevailed, as seen by the phrase because
this widow troubles me ( ). It was solely the
womans persistence and nothing else that caused the judge to grant the request.
12

The purpose clause introduced by lest ( ) 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 (). 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 ( ) 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 ()
and weary ().
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 () to

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, 2:33132.
17
Plummer, Luke, p. 413.
18
Ibid.
19
Lenski, Luke, p. 894.
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 ( ), receive emphasis by being placed before the
interrogative words, shall not? ( ), which expects an affirmative answer.
The conjunction but () 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 ( ). 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 () 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 (
), 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 judges delay with the fact that God doesnt 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 (), 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 () most naturally refers to the elect. Vincent demonstrates quite
effectively that in this instance though () 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

Vincents 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

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.
indifference. God delays (or seems to do so) to perfect His childrens 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 .
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 ( ) 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 Lords
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 Lords 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

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.
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 petitionspecific, 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.