Luke 18:1-8 (NRSV)

The Parable of the Widow and the Unjust Judge

¹Then Jesus^* told them a parable about their need to pray always and not to lose heart. ²He said, ‘In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor had respect for people. ³In that city there was a widow who kept coming to him and saying, “Grant me justice against my opponent.” ⁴For a while he refused; but later he said to himself, “Though I have no fear of God and no respect for anyone, ⁵yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will grant her justice, so that she may not wear me out by continually coming.” ’^{* 6}And the Lord said, ‘Listen to what the unjust judge says. ⁷And will not God grant justice to his chosen ones who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long in helping them? ⁸I tell you, he will quickly grant justice to them. And yet, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?’

William Barclay suggests that the ‘judge’ could not have been Jewish and Jesus hints at this because he describes him as one who ‘... neither feared God nor had respect for people ...’ All ordinary Jewish people took their disputes to the elders and not to the public courts. If a legal judgement was needed, there would be three judges, one chosen by the plaintiff, the second chosen by the defendant and the third would be independently appointed.

The judge in this parable would have been a reference to one appointed either by the Romans or by King Herod. These judges were notoriously corrupt: unless one had money to bribe one’s way to the desired verdict, it would not happen. People even punned on their title: officially they were referred to as ‘judges of prohibitions or punishments’ (Dayyaneh Gezeroth) but they were called robber judges (Dayyaneh Gezeloth)!

The widow symbolised all who were poor and defenceless and was without material resources of any kind and so had no hope of getting justice. But she did have one thing – persistence.

It is a mistake to think that the judge represents God; rather Jesus contrasts the judge with God. Barclay paraphrases the message as follows: “If, in the end, an unjust and rapacious judge can be wearied into giving a widow woman justice, how much more will God, who is a loving Father, give his children what they need?”

But this does not mean that the Christian need think that God will provide everything they pray for. Often a Father has to refuse a request of a child because he knows what is asked for is not in the long-term best interest of the child. Only God sees in the longer term and knows what is best for us.

One of the great weaknesses of some secular (and even religious) teleological systems, focusing on consequences, as that we cannot predict what these will be – especially in the longer term. But God can!

Jesus says that we must not be discouraged in prayer and Barclay concludes: “... and our faith will never falter if, after we have offered to God our prayers and requests, we add the perfect prayer, ‘Thy will be done’.”

Barclay is brilliant at providing insights into the original contexts of Scripture, but I am no longer sure that I can accept his conclusion uncritically. It seems easy to say ‘Thy will be done’ from the confines of our academic studies, but what does this say to those who cry out in prayer, persistently, because of the horror of torture, injustice and imprisonment and so on, and it seems to them just not to work?

G B Caird reminds us that, of all the Evangelists, Luke would appear to be the one that was the most interested in prayer and so it is fitting that he combines the themes of prayer with that of another, justice.

The perversion of justice is often mentioned in the Old Testament and so it was a part of the experience of many people. It was the function of a judge to be an impartial arbiter but also to be the champion of those who were vulnerable to injustice e.g. the widow, the orphan, the poor and the foreigner. Caird comments: ‘... whatever other cases he heard, he must be sure that these at least received their rights. This is explicit in the Law, most notably in Exodus 22:22, Deuteronomy 10:18 as well as in Psalm 68:5 and the prophets Isaiah 1:17 and Jeremiah 22:3.’

But the judge in the parable was not influenced by religious conviction nor public opinion with the result that the poor widow – who was too poor to be able to resort to bribery and without influential friends had to resort to all that she had left – and that was her persistence!

In contrast to the judge we have God who is the champion of the needy and oppressed and  who listens patiently to those who call upon him. God can be relied on to intervene with ‘... swift and sudden vindication.’ So Caird concludes: ‘If persistence prevails with one who cares only for his own peace and comfort, how much more will it prevail with One who has compassion for his elect?’

But once again, we cannot take this too literally, because we know that oftentimes, people cry out to God in their need, because of trials and tribulations in this life, and they are not spared; they have to endure even sometimes to death. But I will come back to this later.

Caird has an interesting take on the idea of ‘election’. He reminds us that references to Israel being the elect only come at a time of their national humiliation. The implication is therefore, that the elect are those who are specially called to serve God through suffering for their faith at the hands of the ungodly world. It is their loyalty to God that forces them to their needs to pray day and night and to persist in this way. If election means favouritism, it is because God is on the side of those who are on the receiving end of injustice – the innocent victims of persecution.

To be fair, when Jesus calls us, he tells us that the going is going to be tough. As Bonhoeffer reminded us in the midst of his stand against Nazi Germany, the cost of being a disciple can require us to sacrifice everything. But the difference is that for those who are united with Christ, there is meaning and purpose and a deep sense of fulfilment. The secret is faith. Being united with Christ, who comes to us in the deepest and most significant way as a suffering Messiah, present with us means no delay, he is right there with us, indeed he is within us.

Earle Ellis explains the background to this parable which I find quite useful. Apparently, it was written at a time when Christians were under deep persecution and they were denying their faith as a result. For them, the delay of the perousia was more than a chronological problem; it was a ‘life’ problem. Luke then reminds his readers of Jesus’ teaching of the coming of the ‘Son of Man’ to give them encouragement.

Jesus always made it clear that suffering will precede his return and that the means of survival was through prayer. And in the end, God is not like the unjust judge who provides justice to the persistent widow; he does even more in vindicating his elect. So, the implication must be that not only must the disciples persist in prayer; they must have the right attitude to accompany their prayers – perseverance. LaVerdier adds: “They may be persecuted, but this is no grounds for self-righteous comparisons with others (verse 9) ...” which becomes the subject of the second parable that follows.