Then, teaching them more about prayer, He used this story: “Suppose you went to a friend’s house at midnight, wanting to borrow three loaves of bread. You say to him, ‘A friend of mine has just arrived for a visit, and I have nothing for him to eat.’ And suppose he calls out from his bedroom, ‘Don’t bother me. The door is locked for the night, and my family and I are all in bed. I can’t help you.’ But I tell you this—though he won’t do it for friendship’s sake, if you keep knocking long enough, he will get up and give you whatever you need because of your shameless persistence.
Luke 11:5-8
Luke makes it clear in his introduction to this story that in this story Jesus elaborates more on the matter of prayer. It is Luke who makes this comment, not Jesus directly in the story. Many preachers suggest the man was refused assistance by one friend when he asked to borrow three loaves of bread. It was only his persistence after the refusal that finally ends in his request being granted. Is that what happened or is it not? Look carefully at the setting for this story.
Suppose you went to a friend’s house and you say to him . . . And suppose he calls from his bedroom . . .
Did the friend actually say “Don’t bother me . . . I’m in bed . . . I cant help you”? To understand this story we need to understand the cultural cues behind the story. The cultural background to this story suggests not.
We are talking here about a strongly relational cultural value in showing hospitality. In Gem 252 I told the following story:
I met a man in the back blocks of Papua New Guinea while on a linguistic survey. We (5 of us white strangers) arrived at a remote village unannounced at dusk. The people proceeded to clear out a house and clean it to allow us the use of it for the night. They took their last chicken and cooked it so we had something to eat. After the meal I got into a conversation with an old man. He asked me if we had tomatoes for the trail the next day. [Tomatoes are good as a vegetable that has high water content when hiking]. I told him no we didn’t. He invited me to go with him to his garden so he could give me some tomatoes. I declined the offer knowing PNG gardens are far from the village and it was already approaching 10.00 pm. Also, it’s hard to follow a Papua New Guinean through the bush in the dark. As I was leaving with the others on the trail the next morning, this man came up to me carrying a bundle of tomatoes, as we made our way out of the village. He had gone to his garden for me in the middle of the night and had come back early with the tomatoes, to make sure I had something for the trail. Me, a white stranger he would never see again and all of my friends. I suspect he gave all he had to care for us. Now that is hospitality. To have done anything else would have been inconceivable in a culture which places high value on hospitality.
In Gem 341 I wrote the following:
. . . many of the tribes of Papua New Guinea and Indonesia would rank murder the lowest. In terms of the pay back system, you are honour bound to avenge the life that was taken, even if the family member died in a road accident. It matters not, the person must pay with their life for the life which was taken. Is that a sin you ask? No way they would say. Papuan, Indonesian or Filipino culture would rank inhospitality toward the top of the list. The Jewish culture in Israel fits this mould as well. Hospitality is a highly valued cultural trait.
We are dealing with a culture where to not show hospitality to a friend or a fellow villager would be unthinkable. The SUPPOSE here carries the force “can any of you imagine the circumstances whereby a friend would say, “No. Go away . . . if you had a really genuine need?”
Let me ask you the question, especially those of you from Indonesia: what would you do if a fellow villager came to your house at midnight and asked your help in a matter of hospitality? Especially if that fellow villager was a friend? It would be unthinkable, would it not, to refuse to offer hospitality? We have personally been the recipients of extraordinary hospitality from Papua New Guineans, Indonesians, Indians and many others whose cultures place a high value on looking after guests, even when, like that village in Papua New Guinea, the guests were total strangers from a foreign culture. Yet still the inhabitants of the village went to extreme measures to show hospitality. Can you imagine this not happening for one of their own; even more so more for a friend!
That is the background of this story. It is a based on a cultural perspective so foreign to that of many of the readers of this passage.
Now put the following information into the mix and stir it all up till it has blended together.
[anaideia] – “Importunity” (KJV) What does it mean?From Strongs Lexicon:
Impudence, that is, (by implication) importunity
Thayers Lexicon:
Shamelessness, impudence
ISBE
Importunity
Occurs only in Luke 11:8, where it is the rendering of ἀναίδεια, anaı́deia. This Greek word implies an element of impudent insistence, shamelessness, to be without shame, which the English word “importunity” fails to express, thus weakening the argument of the parable, which is that if by shameless insistence a favour may be won, even from one unwilling and ungracious, still more surely will God answer the earnest prayer of His people. God’s willingness to give, exceeds our ability to ask. This story teaches by way of contrast, not by parallel.
Note the element, literally, “which of you” (Luke 11:5) would act in this way? Answer: none of us. It is not culturally appropriate. Ah, there is the point. Contrastive to the whole thrust of the story. In this shame society, where it would be unthinkable to act in this way, we have the word importunity dropped in the text. One who is without shame.
- Have you no sense of shame, to act in this way?
- What way?
- Who is being referred to here?
Remember my question from the last Gem – whose importunity? The setting is ambiguous. The shame or the shamelessness could belong to the person knocking on the door or to the person who was in bed and did not want to get up.
There is debate among the experts here. There are two options here:
1. The man at the door.
If it is the shamelessness of the man at the door, then the sense is the impudence behind his actions and the fact that he has no sense of shame in continuing to press his request on his friend, despite that fact that he clearly doesn’t want to get up and answer the door or disturb his sleeping family. He has no sense of shame in the midst of this shame society to be doing what he is doing.
2. The man in bed
If we apply shamelessness to the man in bed, then the sense is for him to not be ashamed in the way he would treat his friend and fellow villager, by not helping him out in his hour of need. Of course it would be unquestionable that he would not do it. He’d get up and give the bread to his friend. To not do so would cause him to suffer huge shame among the other villagers. Most would respond with a willingness to help. That is the cultural expectation here. Especially so, given the fact that all in the village friends or kin.
Next Gem we will look at what it all means in the context of prayer.
If you are a host to your guest, be a host to his dog also.
Russian Proverb
Visits always give pleasure – if not the arrival, the departure.
Portuguese Proverb
Fish and visitors smell in three days.
Benjamin Franklin
Hospitality is making your guests feel at home, even if you wish they were.
Anon
It is a sin against hospitality to open your doors and darken your countenance.
Anon
Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling.
1 Peter 4:9