PARABLE OF THE FRIEND AT MIDNIGHT (LUKE 11:5-8)

Some of Jesus' parables pose problems for the reader by either painting an unflattering picture of God or seeming to approve of immoral behavior. Most problem parables have been explained in one of four ways:

1. Using arguments from the lesser to the greater such as “If you being evil know how to give good gifts, etc.  “We can hardly make analogies about God without some sense of 'how much more.'” (Ron Sider, Interpreting the Parables)

2. Realizing that these are limited comparisons in one aspect only. After all, Jesus is actually compared to a thief in Matthew 25:1-13; Mark 3:27; and II Peter 3:10. As Snodgrass puts it,  "Metaphors are not equations."

3. By attempting to justify the dubious behavior of the characters.

4. Dismissing problem areas as being extraneous details of the story.

Before we get to any of these specific stories, I would like to briefly look at some problems pointed out by one atheist, Brian Bolton, in regard to several of Jesus' other parables involving masters and slaves.

“And while he condemned interpersonal violence, even in self-defense, he hypocritically incorporated extreme violence into his five Matthean slave parables.” (“Jesus: Prophet of Peace and Love or Purveyor of Fear and Hate?,” American Atheist, 4^th Quarter 2017, pp. 16-21)

“Jesus' approval of slavery is readily apparent in his inclusion of servants and their masters in eight of his parables. Because he never criticized nor condemned slavery and he did not forbid people from owning slaves, he tacitly endorsed the practice. In one of these parables, he explicitly authorized the cruel master-slave relationship when he recommended whipping disobedient slaves.” (“God is a Slave Owner's Best Friend and the Bible is the Instruction Manual,” American Atheist, 1^st Quarter 2018, pp. 22-26)

In rebuttal are the following points:

1. Parables take familiar situations of the day and use them to make a spiritual point. The details of the parable are there mainly to add color to the story.

2. Parables often do not teach morals in the least and were not intended to do so. We will see this in the present lesson.

3. Also, parables, as made-up stories, often contain hyperbolic situations. For example, masters loaning “slaves” huge amounts of money or personally carrying out a death penalty (which probably would not have been allowed under current law at the time).

4. Bolton purposely blurs the categories of slave, servant, and steward in his criticism and has little understanding of how these workers were treated in the Jewish world at the time and how the situation differed from both slavery in the Roman world and slavery in the Southern USA.

5. The argument from silence is always a weak one and could easily be used to prove that Jesus endorsed any typical practice in the world at that time that he didn't specifically condemn.

The Friend at Midnight (Luke 11:5-8)

Context: It follows Luke' version of the Lord's Prayer in vv. 1-4, to which it is connected by the similar requests for “bread” in vv. 3 and 5. Geldenhuys notes that this parable goes beyond Jesus answering the original request in v. 1 on how to pray. He now addresses the certainty we should have that our requests will be answered. The present parable is also followed by a related teaching on prayer in vv. 11-13, which some people have also labeled as a parable. In addition, Marshall and others point to the Parable of the Unjust Judge in Luke 18:1-8 (discussed in future post) as a close parallel to help us understand the meaning. Both contain the phrase “cause me trouble” (11:7 and 18:5).

Almost everything depends on the definition of the Greek word anaideia, which occurs nowhere else in the NT.

Translations for anaideia

A. Persistence – J. B. Phillips, Living Bible, NASB, Jerusalem Bible, NRSV, AB

    Marshall: “Persistent, rather than importunate, prayer is the point.”

B. Importunity (overly persistent and urgent) – KJV, RSV

C. Shamelessness – NEB, TEV, NIV

Snodgrass has made an extensive study of this word in Greek and Roman writings and concludes that it never means persistence and always connotes something very negative. It is best translated as “insensitivity, shamelessness or effrontery/nerve.” In secular contexts of the time it had the meaning of outrageous and offensive behavior or recklessness.

Verse 5 can be paraphrased as “Can anyone of you image that..?” or “Would any of you do such a thing?” This is a rhetorical question that runs to the end of v. 7 with the implied answer of 'no.' The problem is that it is not clear who the unthinkable action applies to: the one requesting the bread or the man awakened from sleep. Kistemaker concludes that both of them behaved shamelessly in different ways.

The one approach to the parable to avoid is the allegorical one. Leaving aside the details of the parable, the main identifications one is tempted to find in the story are:

    Man inside the house = God.

    Man requesting bread = a poster child for how we should approach God in prayer.

Unfortunately, when you start out with that mindset, it becomes necessary to interpret the actions of both characters in a totally positive light, whether or not the text justifies it. For example, Geldenhuys sees absolutely no initial hesitation or refusal on the part of the awakened man, despite the obvious indications otherwise. In addition, he points out that the man gives his neighbor “all that he needs,” stressing his generosity.

Geldenhuys then explains that the “shamelessness” of the requester only refers to his boldness in approaching the neighbor since he knew he would get a favorable response. Thus, (a) there was a close relationship of friendliness between the two characters to begin with and (b) the request was not frivolous but based on necessity. That last point is disputed among scholars and depends on how reasonable or unreasonable the request for three loaves was in the first place. If Marshall is correct, then that was much more than needed for a meal; so instead the neighbor gave him only what was really required.

The above approach explains why some call this a problem parable since most readers can easily sense that these two characters demonstrate more human than divine behavior and find this picture hard to reconcile with what they know about the nature of God and the way we should relate to Him in prayer.

Verse 6: The parable has realistic overtones since (a) many travelers began after sundown in order to avoid the heat of the day and (b) all the shops would have been closed by then.

Verses 7-8 The disturbed sleeper omits “friend” because of his annoyance. (Marshall) To get up, light a lamp, find the bread, step over his sleeping family on the floor and draw the bolt would wake up the others in the house also. Kistemaker says that the man is all but saying “no” to the request. However, he acts as the first son in the Parable of the Two Sons by eventually complying. At this point, I have to disagree with Snodgrass. In order to avoid even a hint that the neighbor continued to knock and pester him, Snodgrass denies that the sleeping man was initially reluctant but later changes his mind. That stance is hard to justify from the text, but Snodgrass is perfectly correct in seeing no “persistence” in the man's request.

Snodgrass summarizes the various opinions as to the interpretation of this parable. The only ones that make any sense rely on the argument from the lesser to the greater (as utilized overtly in the subsequent story at v. 13), and these fall into three camps:

    1. If a human will respond to persistent asking, how much more will God. This is Kistemaker's approach. The major problem here is that there is absolutely no indication that the neighbor continued to knock and repeat his request for help. That whole idea is foreign to this parable and is probably heavily influenced by the somewhat similar story of the Unjust Judge in Luke 18. 

    2. If a human will respond to a request in order to avoid shame, how much more will God? Some people take the word anaideia in a positive sense as “wishing to avoid appearing as shameless in the community because of lacking proper hospitality.” But whether that description is applied to the man asking for bread or the sleeping man, there is no justification in the text for either interpretation. Snodgrass notes that the key word never connotes avoidance of shame but instead expresses an ignorance of or total disregard for shame. 

    3. If a human will respond to a shameless and rude request, how much more will God respond to a legitimate request. Snodgrass: “The whole point of the parable...is that God is not like the sleeper. It is a parable actually contrasting God with the sleeper.” “The parable teaches the certainty of a God who hears prayer and responds.” This is the favored interpretation, at least in my mind.