In today’s first reading, Abraham bargained with God over the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, presumably because Abraham was concerned for his extended family which resided in the cities.  This type of bargaining was common in the ancient world. 

As central governments of cities and nations did not provide their citizens with the type of public services, such as police protection and social welfare support, that we take for granted, each family had responsibility for protecting its members.  Families unable to protect themselves had to depend on eliciting the favor of someone wealthy or powerful enough to grant them protection. 

Abraham’s bargaining with God was a typical example of someone trying to elicit a favor from one who was perceived as being able to grant the favor.  In this interchange, Abraham approached God as a potential benefactor; if God granted the favor, Abraham would have then owed God a debt.   

One of the more prominent features of the bargaining conversation is that Abraham made no attempt to disguise his act of imposing on God’s mercy.  He said to God, “Far be it from you to do such a thing, to make the innocent die with the guilty so that the innocent and the guilty would be treated alike!  Should not the judge of all the world act with justice?” (Gn 18:25)   

Abraham not only presumed the efficacy of God’s mercy, but he also presumed upon God’s mercy by pointing out that the wanton destruction of innocent people would bring shame to God’s Name.  Abraham implied that God would lose honor by not living up to God’s reputation for mercy.  God, being perfectly righteous and honorable, would never do anything against God’s own nature.  Consequently, God promised Abraham that he would not destroy the cities if even ten honorable people could be found there. 

Maintaining one’s positive public reputation was prized even above wealth in ancient middle eastern culture.  The parable in today’s Gospel reading is based on this same cultural value of honorable behavior.  Unfortunately, the parable’s reference to maintaining a reputation for justice and virtue is obscured by a faulty translation. 

In the Gospel reading, one of Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Lord, teach us to pray just as John taught his disciples.” (Lk 11:1)  Jesus’ instruction contained both a formula for prayer and an appropriate attitude to be practiced in prayer. 

His formula for prayer, called “the Lord’s Prayer,” consists of an act of reverence followed by petitions for the completion of God’s plan of universal salvation.  He added that one should approach prayer with an attitude of unwavering trust. (Lk 11:9-13) 

Jesus’ perspective on prayer is expressed in his summary of the parable.  He said, “I tell you, if he does not get up to give him the loaves because of their friendship, he will get up to give him whatever he needs because of his persistence.”  The statement seems to encourage persistent, repetitive prayer of petition, but there are two reasons to question the validity of the translation. 

First, the “he” in the statement refers to the sleepy neighbor who uses the excuse of a locked door to refuse help to someone in need.  It seems likely, therefore, that the “he” who “will get up to give” is the same person who will act “because of his persistence(?).” 

Second, the word rendered here as “persistence” doesn’t mean persistence.  It was used in ancient literature to denote loss of respectability, loss of honor, or shamefulness.  The word is better translated as dishonor, loss of dignity, or loss of forgiveness. 

It would be more accurate to translate Lk 11:8 as, “I tell you, if he does not get up to give him the loaves because of their friendship, he will get up to give him whatever he needs because otherwise, he would not be forgiven.”(*)

This is not instruction to repeat one’s petitionary prayer manically until one gets what one wants.  Rather, it is instruction to petition God’s help (once) and then, to trust that God will respond to one’s needs. The three rhetorical questions that follow the parable reiterate this lesson.  In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus phrases the same instruction by saying, “In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words.  Do not be like them.  Your Father knows what you need before you ask him.” (Mt 6:7-8) 

Jesus’ teaching on prayer was consistent with all his teaching.  He expected his disciples to engage in a process of lifelong conversion that would lead to greater faith in God and greater love of neighbor.  Prayer that is needless repetition is not an act of faith but rather, an act of worry and self-concern. 

We live in a culture that encourages relentless wanting and equally relentless asking.  The Catholic Faith, by comparison, instructs us to ask once and to trust constantly.  This is for the simple and obvious reason that it is pure foolishness to ask God for help if one does not trust God to show mercy without being asked.

---

(*) Many contemporary Scripture commentators defend the conventional translation of anaidws as “persistence.”  Some refer to the parable called “the importunate widow” in Luke’s Gospel as evidence that Jesus’ attitude toward prayer supported repetitive petitioning of God for one’s needs.  It should be kept in mind, however, that insistent asking and persistent acquiring are modern western cultural values rather than ancient middle eastern values. 

There is a certain kind of respect accorded by our culture to the dogged persistence of telemarketers, door-to-door evangelists, and cyber fraudsters.  No one wants to be the subject of such persistence, but most would like to be the beneficiaries of such persistence. 

It is, perhaps, an unavoidable tendency to interpret Jesus’ parables from the point of view of the cultural values that are most familiar to us, but it should be kept in mind that Jesus and his contemporaries were entirely unfamiliar with our reverence for persistence, determination, and individual achievement. 

When viewed from the point of view of ancient middle eastern honor-based culture, the Scriptural texts take on a meaning that is unfamiliar to us but much more accurate than most of the conventional modern interpretations.  As the Catholic Church’s perspective on Scriptural interpretation says that one should attend to the meaning intended by the biblical authors, I opt to interpret this parable as recommending unwavering trust in God rather than unwavering trust in one’s own tenacity in asking.