A Critique of Liberal Scholarship - Part 8 - A critique of Jeremias’s interpretation of the parable of the Widow and the Unjust Judge (Luke 18:1–8)

This text is from a letter written by David Gooding in 1996.

---

Editor's note: This article is one part of a multi-part series which David Gooding wrote to critique in a scholarly way some of the work of a number of liberal scholars. The series comprises:

1. Can following liberal scholarship lead to a loss of faith?
2. Following liberal scholarship can lead to biased research
3. Observations on Herman Hendrickx's 'The Accounts of the Resurrection'
4. Observations on the interpretation of parables given by liberal scholars
5. A critique of Jeremias's interpretation of the parable of the Pounds (Luke 19:11–27)
6. A critique of Joachim Jeremias's interpretation of Mark 4
7. A critique of Haenchen's attempt to use Acts 1:9–11 as support for the theory of the delayed Parousia
8. A critique of Jeremias's interpretation of the parable of the Widow and the Unjust Judge (Luke 18:1–8)
9. A critique of Beare's interpretation of the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31)

---

Luke himself tells us that the parable of the Widow and the Unjust Judge was spoken by Christ to encourage believers 'always to pray and not to faint' (Luke 18:1); and Luke's point is further emphasised by the fact that, in his symmetrical structure of the material in this section of his Gospel, this parable is paralleled by the story of the beggar who kept on appealing to Christ, in spite of the discouragement of the crowd, until Christ granted his appeal.

But Luke, says Professor Jeremias, has got it quite wrong. Luke, he says,

clearly links this parable with that of the Pharisee and the Publican as intended to furnish guidance concerning the right way to pray (cf. Luke 18:1): prayer should be persistent and humble. But the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican is very far from being a lesson on how to pray, and the same may be said about the parable under discussion, in spite of its introductory verse (Luke 18:1). (The Parables of Jesus, revised edition, 1972, pg. 156ff)

The reason why it cannot originally have been meant as an encouragement to persist in prayer, says Jeremias, is because, 'On this interpretation the widow is the central figure in the parable, while Jesus' interpretation (Luke 18:6–8a) shows that he intended to direct attention to the figure of the judge'. And, of course, behind this observation by Jeremias is his basic principle that a parable cannot have more than one point: if therefore it was meant to direct attention to the judge, it could not possibly have been meant to direct attention to the widow as well; for that would have given the parable two points, which on Jeremias's hypothesis is impossible in a parable spoken by Jesus.

Let us just take the precaution of reading the interpretation which Christ himself put on the parable (Luke 18:6), which Jeremias claims directs attention to the judge and not to the woman: 'And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge says'. Let us stop there for a moment and do precisely what Christ tells us to do: hear what the unjust judge says. He says, 'Though I fear not God, nor regard man, yet because this widow troubles me, I will avenge her, lest she wear me out by her continual coming' (Luke 18:4–5). Notice that it is the judge himself who explicitly directs attention to the widow and to her persistence in coming and pleading!

So let us get back to our Lord's own interpretation of what the parable is about, and see if, according to Jeremias, he directs our attention solely to the judge; and if from the judge he draws conclusions to God without drawing attention to the widow or to the need to persist in prayer.

Christ's words continue: 'And shall not God avenge his elect?' Yes, of course he will, is the obvious answer expected. If the unprincipled judge eventually avenged the widow in her plight, even though he had no concern for justice, God who is just and cares for justice will certainly avenge his elect. 'Well, there you are,' Jeremias might say, 'Christ has directed attention to the judge and, from the judge, he has drawn conclusions for the character of God. So I am perfectly correct in saying that the point of the parable is to direct attention to the judge and thus to God.'

But wait a minute: we have not quite reached the end of Christ's interpretation. In full, it reads, 'And shall not God avenge his elect who cry to him day and night'. Alas for Jeremias's theory: Christ has gone and drawn attention to the persistent prayer of the elect, as well as to the character of God.

And how could it be otherwise? The parable certainly has for one of its points the character of God as one who is just and compassionate and faithful. But it is not about the character of God in isolation, but about the character of God as it is seen in the final avenging of his people. And therefore it has as its second point that his people's persistence in prayer is connected with the character of God. Let Jeremias himself be witness. His last words in summing up what Jesus is saying to his disciples are:

You are God's elect. He will hear your cry . . . Let there be no doubting his power, goodness, and help. That is the final certainty. Your concern should be with a different matter: when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?

That question with which Jeremias ends is of course the question with which Christ himself brought his interpretation of the parable to an end. What is its relevance? Why should the Son of Man, when he comes, not find faith on the earth?

Both the parable and Christ's interpretation give the answer. God will eventually avenge his elect who cry to him day and night, says Christ; but God is longsuffering over them; that is, he does not immediately avenge them the very first moment they ask him to. In that he is like the judge: he keeps his people waiting for the answer to their prayers. But not, of course, because he is like the unjust judge in his complete disregard for principle and justice.

Nevertheless, when God does not immediately show his concern for justice, but lets his people go on suffering at the hands of their persecutors, naturally their faith begins to waver: is there a God and does he really care about justice? And then they begin to wonder whether it is worthwhile going on praying. 'But you must not give up praying,' says Christ. Why not? Because giving up praying would cast the most serious aspersions on the character of God. It was worth the widow's while to keep on pleading with the unjust judge, because in the end he avenged her, even though he had no care for justice; for you, then, to give up praying to God would make him out to be more unprincipled and unjust than the unjust judge himself. It is the fact that, by the time the Son of Man returns, many will have given up faith in God's justice, indeed in his very existence. But the elect must show by their persistence in prayer that they do believe in God and in the justice of his character.

So then, the parable has not one point only, but two:

1. God's character: he is just and faithful and he will avenge the oppressed.

2. The faith of his people: they must show their faith in God's character by their persistence in prayer.

The theory, that the parables as Christ spoke them have, and can have, only one point, has not only broken down; it is shown to be too simplistic. Because of the very nature of the subject, this parable has, and must have, two main foci: God's character on the one side, and his people's faith and persistent prayer on the other.

Why then should we allow Jeremias's unrealistic and simplistic theory to rob us of the rich texture of Christ's parables? And why, when Jeremias has shown himself lacking in the principles of true literary criticism, should we feel ourselves forced to follow him when, on the basis of his false presuppositions, he boldly asserts that Luke has got things wrong?