The “Nagging Neighbor”: Thoughts on Luke 11:5-8

Have you ever noticed that many of Jesus’ parables seem to have a “dark edge.” By that I mean, the characters in them often exhibit behavior that is . . .  well, less than stellar. In fact, at times their words or actions are downright reprehensible, and for that reason, they strike us as shocking.

Unlike media moguls who employ shock for its “entertainment” value (frequently appealing to the decadent “dark side” of their “disciples”), Jesus used shock to alert His disciples to spiritual truth (usually something related to the Kingdom of God). This powerful literary device worked precisely because Jesus played upon the prevailing values and cultural expectations of his audience to construct scenarios that would startle their imagination (or, as C.H. Dodd put it, “tease the mind into active thought”). Significantly, then, the spiritual truths of Jesus’ parables are often found at the very points where the narrative delivers an unexpected jolt.

Nevertheless, because the prevailing values and cultural expectations of modern (and particularly Western) interpreters differ significantly from those of Jesus’ audience, the original shock waves of Jesus’ parables are sometimes flattened to such a degree so as to be imperceptible. Thus, if we are to identify the shocking twist/s of Jesus’ parables, and in so doing, isolate the theological truth/s conveyed by these stories, then we must learn to read the parables of Jesus through the cultural lenses of a first century Palestinian peasant.

The parable of the “Nagging Neighbor” is a good case in point. Western folks tend to “read” the requester’s attitude as brash, impudent, and even to some degree arrogant. Take Fred, for example. Fred has little clue about Middle Eastern culture today, let alone Middle Eastern culture during Jesus’ earthly ministry. I can just imagine what’s going through Fred’s head as he is processing this parable:

The nerve of the requester’s guest!  Popping in unexpectedly—and in the middle of the night! Why didn’t he give him some advance notice? As for the requester himself, what kind of slothful person would not have enough to feed a single guest one meal—even if he did show up unannounced . . . and in the middle of the night. I mean, I know Dave Ramsey wasn’t around then, but hey! Surely he had a couple of Kit-Kat bars in the snack bin. But would HE be satisfied with Kit-Kat bars? NO! What DOES he request? Three loaves of bread. THREE LOAVES OF BREAD!? He’s only ONE guy! Three loaves of bread could feed a family of four—for three days!  Of all the unmitigated GALL! Oh, yeah, I’d give him ONE sandwich—a KNUCKLE SANDWICH!”

And, having been shocked at all the wrong points, Fred will likely pass over the most shocking element of Jesus story completely unaware. In fact, the neighbor’s reaction (Luke 11:7) is precisely what Fred would expect, except perhaps for the absence of four-letter expletives. But imagine the neighbor’s reaction if Jesus’ parable was set in “the hood” [for full effect, try this with a hip rap beat]:

What! Chu out chor mind?  Git outa ma face!!

The hour is late!  I said, Where’s your grace!

Give ya some bread?? Yore outa yore head!

Ain’t no way I’ll git outa my bed!!

From a westerner’s point of view, everything in the parable thus far is in sync with cultural expectations. Even Jesus’ “punch line” (Luke 11:8) loses much of its punch when we consider that people, sometimes against strong disinclinations, will grant a request under pressure of persistent nagging. [The analogy of one spouse’s request for the other to take out the trash may offer readers some hermeneutical help here].

If Fred were to reduce Jesus’ Middle Eastern story-encased truth into a Western propositionally-stated maxim (the kind of approach we Westerners typically take), it might look something like this:  “To get what you want from people, you have to make your requests boldly and persistently!” Surely this passes the “rings true” test.

But Jesus’ parables were more about the vertical relationship between humans and God than about horizontal relationships between fellow humans. Nudged in this direction, Fred likely would boldly and excitedly proclaim, “I’VE GOT IT!” This parable is teaching us that in order to get what we want from God, we must make our requests boldly and persistently!” Now Fred is elated. In one fell swoop, he has mastered a somewhat enigmatic parable of Jesus, and he has sanctified his “desire to acquire.” Sadly, Fred may never again consider whether or not his interpretation actually fits the theology of Jesus.

You see, Jesus did not construct this parable (or any, for that matter) with 21^st century Westerners in mind. Even if his prophetic window brought us to his mind, it was only tangentially. Besides, if He knew of “us,” he would also know that we would understand the importance of interpreting a speaker’s words in the light of their original historical context. So the critical question here is, “How would Jesus’ original hearers have processed this parable?”

Jesus opens with a question that calls each person in the audience to commit himself to an answer: “Which one of you . . .” He is, in essence, asking for a “show of hands.” This is important because according to a rather strong consensus in Biblical scholarship, the most fundamental cultural value held by the people of Jesus’ day was honor-shame. Every word, whether premeditated or expressed, and every action, whether planned or accomplished was calculated or judged, respectively, as to its effect on a person’s honor in the community. Thus we can be virtually certain that when Jesus asked this question about bread, every person in the audience would answer in accordance with the commonly held cultural values so as not to have “egg on his face.”

Heard through first century ears, everything in this parable sets the audience up to expect that the request WILL be granted. Popping in on a friend unannounced was not considered rude or brash. They didn’t even have telegraph, let alone emails or text messaging.

Moreover, since nearly eighty (80!) percent of the people lived at poverty level and barely had enough food for their family for each day, having nothing for a guest who popped in would not have been viewed as an indication of sloth. This scenario is perfectly imaginable for everyone in Jesus’ audience.

The request for three loaves indicated neither gluttony nor arrogance. Loaves in Jesus day were typically no bigger than the palm of one’s hand [we are not talking about three loaves of Strohman Sunbeam here!] These loaves taken together were just enough to feed one person one meal.

The trap has been set, and Jesus is about to spring it. To this point, everyone in Jesus’ audience is ready to cast his vote: “Of course, everyone of us would give this guy what he needs!” But the character in Jesus’ parable reacts just the opposite: “Don’t bother me. . . . (Luke 11:7). This is the shock point of the parable.

Jesus’ question is: “Which one of you would act this way?” Their answer is: “NO ONE! Unthinkable! Murder the bum!” But Jesus anticipated their condemnation of this character, and immediately got him off the hook by telling them that the guy “WILL get up and give [the requester] as much as he needs” (Luke 11:8).

At this point the basic message of the parable is clear: the houseowner WILL grant the request of His friend. But why? Why can we count on this? The answer lies in the verdict Jesus passes (Luke 11:8).

Interestingly enough, although Jesus’ hearers can be certain that the neighbor will grant his friend’s untimely request, they cannot be certain as to the reason because the verdict that Jesus supplied (“yet because of HIS ________, [the houseowner] will get up and give him …”) contains two striking ambiguities:  (1) The action or character quality that Jesus mentions (left blank above) and (2) the person to whom that action or character trait applies (the ambiguous “HIS” above).

[Footnote: We must note here that the ambiguities mentioned above may not have been present for Jesus’ original audience. If, for example, Jesus was telling this parable in Aramaic rather than Greek, the references may have been crystal clear. Nevertheless, readers or hearers of Luke’s Gospel would have read or heard the Greek as it stands along with its resident ambiguities. So we proceed here on that basis.]

The grammar of this statement of Jesus is not sufficient to locate with certainty the referent of the pronoun “his.” Modern readers are thus at the mercy of the translators who have made the interpretive decision for their readers. Of the eighteen English Bible translations I consulted, all eighteen take the requester as the referent of “his,” and none moves very far from the quality advanced by the KJV, namely “importunity.” For those unfamiliar with this euphemistic term, it basically means “annoying persistence,” or to put it bluntly, “nagging.”

The problem is that there is not the slightest hint of repetition or persistence in the meaning of the term Luke uses [ajnaivdeia, for those bold enough to grapple with the original languages]. It appears that translators have read the idea of persistence into this term based on the immediately following context in which Jesus urges his followers to “Keep on” asking, seeking, and knocking (that is the grammatical force of these Greek present tense verbs). And this may well give us the sense here.

But “bold, brash, annoying persistence” does not appear to lie at the core of the semantic range of ajnaivdeia. This role is rightfully occupied by “shamelessness.” Unlike “bold, annoying persistence” which could apply only to the requester, “shamelessness” could apply to either the requester or the “disturbed neighbor” [I refer, of course, to the one disturbed from sleep!—any allusions to deranged individuals who may reside in your neighborhood is entirely unintentional and unwarranted]

If “shameless” applies to the requester, then the disturbed neighbor grants the request because his friend shamelessly disturbed the peace at an inappropriate hour. If “shameless” applies to the disturbed neighbor himself, then the disturbed neighbor grants the request because he wants to remain “shameless”, (i.e., without shame, honored) in the community. He fears that by denying his friend bread he will end up with egg on his face, or worse, that he will lose face entirely. In other words, he grants the request out of concern for his reputation; he doesn’t want to have the shame of denying a fully legitimate request of a friend.

Either way we understand this, the disturbed neighbor does not appear in a laudable light. If he grants the request only because he doesn’t want to “look bad,” or only because he has been “bugged to death,” his motives are entirely self-serving and nothing worthy of praise.

But what about God?

Who?

God.

Oh yes, Him.

Removed from its context in Luke’s Gospel, this parable says absolutely nothing about God. But we know, of course, that Jesus’ parables had everything to do with God, His kingdom, and sometimes His Son. That fact that Luke has sandwiched this parable between “The Lord’s Prayer” (Luke 11:1-4) and encouragement to his disciples to pray (Luke 11:9-13) suggests that the parable has something to do with prayer. As strange as it might appear, the “disturbed neighbor” must represent God, for YHWH never operates out of personal need. But this character’s motives are hardly worthy of God. This is the “dark edge” of the parable. Rather than telling us directly what God is like, this parable is telling us what God is like by telling us what God is NOT like (compare this with the parable of the persistent widow (Luke 18:1-8).

There seems to be little doubt that the interpretive key to this parable lies in Jesus’ follow-up encouragements to pray. After the encouragements to keep on asking, seeking, and knocking, Jesus asks the fathers in the audience how they would respond if their son asked them for some food. He presents only the negative option in the question: Will you give him a snake? or Will you give him a scorpion? I have little doubt that to a man these fathers answered in unison:  “NO WAY! We’d give them something healthy, not something deadly!”

Having prepared the ground, Jesus now delivers the seed—using the typical rabbinic “lesser to greater” argument: If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, HOW MUCH MORE will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:13)

So the parable of the friend at Midnight prepares the ground. It focuses on the certainty that the request will be granted. Jesus’ point is this: If a friend will grant the untimely request of a friend just to save face in the community or just to keep from being bugged to death, and if an earthly, father, even though he is sinful, will care for his son’s legitimate needs, HOW MUCH MORE will God give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him (Luke 11:13).

I offer two final points for reflection. The first is a caveat; the second a challenge:

WARNING: to use the parable of the Friend at Midnight to suggest that God will give us whatever we want if we ask Him long enough, loud enough, and persistently enough is unwarranted and unbiblical. On the positive side, the Bible does teach that if we ask anything ACCORDING TO HIS WILL, we have the certainty that we will receive what we ask for!

CHALLENGE: Is Luke suggesting that the Holy Spirit is part of the “daily bread” that we should be praying for on a daily basis Luke 11:3)? If so, we have the certainty that we will receive what we have asked for!