Contradictions

Is it okay to ask for things while praying?

The tension

The contradiction targets importunity — persistent, repetitive petitioning in prayer. Matthew 6:7-8 directly condemns it, with Jesus telling the disciples not to babble like the Gentiles because the Father already knows what they need before they ask. Luke 11:5-13 (the friend at midnight) and Luke 18:1-8 (the persistent widow) run the opposite way, with Jesus explicitly teaching that persistence in asking is exactly what gets rewarded.

Proposed answers

People have answered this in several ways; GEBible presents them as equal peers.

Importunity in prayer commanded

And he said unto them, Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight, and say unto him, Friend, lend me three loaves; For a friend of mine in his journey is come to me, and I have nothing to set before him? And he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not: the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee. I say unto you, Though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needeth. And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint.

Cited passages

Importunity in prayer condemned

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

Cited passages

Examining the tension

What follows is one scholar’s way of reading this disagreement — a critical-historical view that often concludes the texts genuinely disagree. It draws on the peer-reviewed sources listed below and stands as one position among the answers above, presented for transparency, not as GEBible’s position.

How critical scholarship weighs this: Leans toward a genuine contradiction

This summarizes where critical scholarship tends to land on this tension — a report on the field’s center of gravity, not GEBible’s own ruling.

The contradiction concerns importunity — persistent, repeated petitioning in prayer — and the two Synoptics that handle it most directly answer in opposite directions. In Matthew 6:7-8, within the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus instructs disciples not to "use vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking," grounding the prohibition in the Father's prior knowledge: "your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." The Greek verb *battalogeō* (or *battologeō*) is rare and onomatopoeic, evoking meaningless babbling or stammering repetition; the parallel phrase *polylogia*, "much speaking," reinforces that what is condemned is quantity and reiteration. The Lord's Prayer that immediately follows (Matthew 6:9-13) models the alternative: brief, ordered, economical petition.

Luke, by contrast, twice attaches parables to prayer whose explicit lesson is to keep asking. The friend at midnight (Luke 11:5-8) culminates in a man who rises and gives "because of his importunity" — the Greek *anaideia*, "shamelessness" or persistent boldness — not because of friendship. In the Lukan sequence this is immediately generalized: "ask... seek... knock" (Luke 11:9-10), with present-tense imperatives that connote continued action. The persistent widow (Luke 18:1-8) is even more pointed: Luke prefaces it editorially with the moral "that men ought always to pray, and not to faint" (18:1), and the widow prevails precisely by wearing down an unjust judge through relentless petition (the judge fears she will, literally, give him a black eye, *hypōpiazē*, 18:5). Both Lukan parables argue a fortiori — if a grudging friend and an unjust judge yield to persistence, how much more will God — but the rhetorical engine of both is that persistence works.

The usual harmonization, advanced by Craig Blomberg and D. A. Carson, distinguishes the objects of the two teachings: Matthew condemns only mindless, mechanical pagan repetition (the magical piling-up of words to compel a deity), whereas Luke commends sincere, faith-filled persistence. There is real exegetical substance here. Matthew's target is explicitly the *ethnikoi* and their theory that volume secures a hearing — a critique of prayer-as-incantation, not of asking more than once. And the Lukan parables are about perseverance in trust, not about coercing God through verbiage. So the two are not strict logical contradictories: one can both pray persistently and avoid empty babble.

Yet the harmonization smooths over a genuine difference in posture. Matthew's rationale — God already knows your needs before you ask — pushes against the very mechanism the Lukan parables exploit. If the Father knows in advance, the function of repeated asking becomes unclear, and Matthew's emphasis falls squarely on brevity and restraint. Luke's emphasis falls on tenacity and the refusal to give up. The friend at midnight in particular makes the granting depend on *anaideia*, persistence itself, which is awkward to reconcile with "your Father knoweth before ye ask." The two evangelists are deploying overlapping Jesus tradition (the ask-seek-knock logion is shared Q material, Matthew 7:7-11 // Luke 11:9-13) toward different pastoral ends — Matthew toward a critique of ostentatious, mechanical prayer, Luke toward an encouragement to persevere amid delayed answers and apparent divine silence (a concern visible in Luke 18:7-8's eschatological framing about the Son of Man finding faith).

So the verbal contradiction softens under the pagan-repetition reading, but a real difference of theology and emphasis remains: Matthew relativizes the value of repeated asking by appeal to divine foreknowledge, while Luke makes persistence the very thing God rewards.

Where the critical reading lands: partially harmonizable on the surface (Matthew targets mechanical babble, not persistence), but a genuine tension of emphasis persists between Matthew's brevity-and-foreknowledge logic and Luke's reward-for-importunity logic.

Sources for this reading

  • W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 1 (ICC; T&T Clark, 1988) pp. 587-590 on Matthew 6:7-8 and battalogeo Matthew 6:7-8
  • Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary, rev. ed. (Hermeneia; Fortress, 2007) pp. 304-308 on vain repetition
  • Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV (Anchor Bible 28A; Doubleday, 1985) pp. 909-915 and 1175-1182 on the friend at midnight and the persistent widow
  • Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 2nd ed. (IVP Academic, 2012) pp. 320-326 on persistence versus pagan repetition