The Shamelessness of God in Prayer (Luke 11:5–13)

In Luke 11, Jesus tells a parable about someone requesting help at midnight. Unfortunately, most translations indicate that Jesus’ parable teaches that prayer is difficult and laborious, so we must be stubbornly persistent to receive anything from God. Rather, I believe Jesus was teaching the opposite point: Prayer is easy because God is naturally generous.

This post examines three aspects of common translations (in bold below) that lead readers toward a “prayer-is-hard” view. The first two involve technical grammar, but set up the discussion about the pivotal concept of “shamelessness.”

Here’s the NRSV translation, which emphasizes persistent faithfulness in prayer:

⁵ And he said to them, “Suppose one of you has a friend, and you go to him at midnight and say to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, ⁶ for a friend of mine has arrived, and I have nothing to set before him.’ ⁷ And he answers from within, ‘Do not bother me; the door has already been locked, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything.’ ⁸ I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything out of friendship, at least because of his persistence he will get up and give him whatever he needs. ⁹ “So I say to you, Ask, and it will be given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you.

1. “Suppose one of you” (vs. “Nobody”)

As in other teachings, Jesus starts by introducing a hypothetical character with a problem. The Greek phrase is literally, “Which of you…?” or “Who among you…?” (τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν). Jesus commonly uses the formulaic saying to ask rhetorical questions.

• “Which of you, by worrying, can add a cubit to his life span?” (Luke 12:25)
• “Which of you, if your son or ox falls into a well, wouldn’t help?” (Luke 14:5)
• “Which of you who wants to build a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost?” (Luke 14:28)
• “Which person among you, having a hundred sheep, wouldn’t search for a lost one?” (Luke 15:4

Notice that the phrase always introduces a hypothetical scenario. The answer to each question would be, “Absolutely nobody!” A more accurate translation of the phrase would be simply “Nobody…” Nobody can add to their life by worrying. Nobody leaves their ox in a well. Nobody builds a tower without running the numbers. Nobody would leave their lost sheep. Nobody has a friend who wouldn’t help at midnight.

The problem with the conventional interpretation “Suppose one of you…” is that it suggests the petitioner is an example to imitate, as if Jesus invites readers to identify and copy the person asking. However, that’s the opposite of Jesus’ story. Rather, the question formula scenario that would never happen. “Nobody in the world has a friend who would not help in this scenario!”

The basic plot is meant to be comical, like someone joking, “Who among you washes a rental car?” The answer: Nobody does that! Likewise, it’s ridiculous to think someone would not help a neighbor in need because they had already locked the door (as if they couldn’t unlock it) or that the sleeping kids are preventing him from helping.

In sum, the midnight asker is an outlandish scenario meant to underscore that relations do not operate like this. It is not an example to imitate. Jesus uses the same logic in two parables soon after: “Is there anyone among you who, if your child asked for a fish, would give a snake instead of a fish? Or if the child asked for an egg, would give a scorpion?” (11:1–12). Through these parabolic questions, Jesus teaches on the nature of the giver, not the recipient. In other words, the parable is about God, not humans, in that it shows us what God is does not avoid helping people in need.

2. “Even though” (vs. “Even if”)

Jesus narrates the fictional episode, then transitions to his explanation: “I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything out of friendship.”

Most Bibles make this phrase concessive by translating εἰ καὶ as “even though,” “though,” or “although.” But a better translation is just “even if.” Consider the difference between “even if” and “even though.”

“Even if you forgot your lunch, you could buy food here.” You could say this to reassure a friend who thought they lost their lunch but just found it. The phrase “even if” introduces a hypothetical, uncertain scenario. “Even if” (especially with a raised voice) highlights the unrealistic nature of what follows. For example, “EVEN IF someone offered me a million dollars, I would never sell my wedding ring.”

“Even though you forgot your lunch, you could buy food here.” The phrase “even though” implies certainty about the first clause. The speaker is certain that the person forgot their lunch. Option one (a homemade lunch) is not possible, so now the only prospect is option two (buying food). There is only one way to achieve the desired outcome.

Applying this to Luke 11, “Even if he didn’t arise and give help as a friend…” presents an imaginary, hypothetical statement that’s the opposite of reality. He’s a friend. Of course, he would help! The Greek word for friend, philos, implies someone who fulfills reciprocal obligations. The conventional translation— “Even though he won’t arise and get up as a friend”—is illogical in an honor-shame, collectivistic culture. Why would being a friend make him not arise and help a neighbor?Thus, Jesus is saying, “In any normal situation, a friend would arise and help someone in need. And even if friendship were not enough of a reason, then . . .” This brings us to point number three.

3. “Persistence” (vs. “Shamelessness”)

In Jesus’ story, a petitioner makes a big request, which is fulfilled because of “his anaideia.” This Greek word causes great confusion.

The word anaideia literally means shamelessness. It’s a combination of an (negation) and aidos (shamefulness, usually the healthy sense, as in “modesty” or “proper discretion”). Snodgrass has examined 258 ancient occurrences of the word and concluded that the term is always negative.[1] It refers to people who lack shame and behave improperly toward others.

In most translations of this parable, anaideia to refer to the rudeness and insensitivity of the person asking at midnight. The person sleeping thinks the asker has no sense of shame. Thus, the translations render anaideia as importunity, persistence, boldness, or audacity.

This reading has several issues.

1. The adjective “his” can refer to the person asking or to the person responding. Grammatically, either person’s behavior could be “shameless.”
2. The parallel parables in v. 11–12 focus on the availability of God, not the manner of humans’ prayer. The point is that God is faithful in answering, not that we should be faithful in asking. The focus is on God’s nature, not human piety. (Of course, the two are related, i.e., we can ask because he answers, but the issue is one of priority and emphasis.)
3. The person asking is not presented as an example to be imitated. See point #1 above.
4. The logic of “shamelessly audacity” is theologically problematic. Why is Jesus teaching us to badger God? I suspect many Christians have long normalized this view of prayer, in which it depends on our constant demands and unwavering fervor. But why would Jesus be teaching us to pester God, as if God were distant, stingy, or deaf?

So then, how else might we understand “his anaideia”? In fact, the word describes the person being asked. Even if he doesn’t help because of social bonds (i.e., friendship), he will help because of the potential threat of being considered shameful (i.e., shamelessness).

Consider how shamefulness as a threat can motivate virtuous behavior. A person’s shamelessness can, naturally, lead them to do shameless things—for example, “Why does he not share? Is he shameless!?” However, although “shamelessness” itself has a negative meaning, actions motivated by “shamelessness” are not always negative. Especially in a collectivist culture, the threat or prospect of being considered shameless prompts people to act rightly. That is, the threat of being considered shameful, the social reality of shamelessness that hangs over people, motivates positive action.

This is the sense of the anaideia in Luke 11:8. The person sleeping, as someone motivated by the threat of being considered shameful due to stinginess, will naturally help his neighbor in need. Similarly, God answers our prayers for the sake of his own glory, to preserve his own reputation, to avoid the erosion of his honor, to avoid the threat of shame—that is, because of (the threat of) shamelessness. This is not an innate shamefulness, but the prospect of being scorned and diminished as unfaithful or too weak to help those in covenant with him. God is always available and eager to help because his own glorious reputation is at stake.

Conclusion

After teaching about God’s nature, Jesus explains a proper response with three imperatives: ask, seek, knock. The translation of the above story (coupled with our false ideas about religious performance) often leads readers to understand these as continuous imperatives: keep asking, keep seeking, keep knocking. They are iterative actions to be repeated until the person being asked is finally bothered enough to concede. But if Jesus is teaching about God’s constant availability, it seems like this is an invitation: “Just ask, just seek, just knock. God makes it so easy for us. Just initiate, and he’ll respond!”  

The following paraphrase of Luke 11:5–13 incorporates these insights to convey Jesus’ main point about the ease of prayer in light of God’s natural generosity.

Jesus taught them: Nobody has a friend that, if you went to him in an emergency because you needed food for guests, would say to you, “Sorry, I already locked the door and got my pajamas on. It’s too much work for me to get up and help.”  That’d be ridiculous, right? Surely, even if he didn’t help you as a friend (which is highly unlikely), he would at least help out of a sense of honor, to avoid being shameless.  

When you want something from God, just ask, and you will receive. Just seek, and you’ll find. Just knock, and someone opens the door. That’s the natural way things work in relationships.

To give two more short examples: None of you would ever give your kid snake meat when they wanted a burger, or a scorpion as a snack. That would be absurd! Even selfish and corrupted humans instinctively help their kids. So then, imagine how much more your Father will gift his presence to his children when they ask? Of course he will—that’s his nature! He’s always available and eager to help, like a neighbor helping a friend in need.

[1] Snodgrass, “Anaideia and the Friend at Midnight” (Luke 11:8),” JBL 116 (1997): 505–13; Stories With Intent (Eerdmans, 2018): 442–47.