<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>An Exegetical Analysis of ἔσωθεν in Luke 11:7</title>
<style>
body { font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', Palatino, 'Book Antiqua', Georgia, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 20px; max-width: 900px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; }
h1, h2, h3 { font-family: 'Georgia', serif; color: #333; }
h2 { border-bottom: 1px solid #eee; padding-bottom: 5px; }
h3 { color: #555; }
p { margin-bottom: 1em; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
blockquote { border-left: 3px solid #ccc; padding-left: 15px; margin: 1em 0; background-color: #f9f9f9; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }
li { margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
.greek-text { font-family: 'Gentium Basic', 'Palatino Linotype', 'Times New Roman', serif; }
</style>
</head>
<body>
<h2>An Exegetical Analysis of <b class="greek-text">ἔσωθεν</b> in Luke 11:7: Implications for the Neighbor's Response</h2>
<p>This exegetical study of "An Exegetical Analysis of <b class="greek-text">ἔσωθεν</b> in Luke 11:7: Implications for the Neighbor's Response" is based on a b-greek discussion thread concerning Luke 11:7. The initial inquiry revolves around the precise meaning of the Greek adverb <b class="greek-text">ἔσωθεν</b> in this context, specifically whether it refers to the spatial location "from within the house" or indicates an internal, unexpressed thought "from within the man himself."</p>
<p>The central exegetical issue concerns the ambiguity of <b class="greek-text">ἔσωθεν</b> (adverb, "from within," "inwardly") when used in conjunction with verbs of speaking. The traditional interpretation understands the neighbor's words as spoken aloud from within his locked house, emphasizing his reluctance and the physical barrier. However, an alternative reading proposes that <b class="greek-text">ἔσωθεν</b> could signify an internal utterance—a thought or a mumbled, unheard response—thus highlighting the man's private exasperation and the supplicant's extraordinary persistence in the face of even unvoiced refusal. This distinction significantly impacts the dramatic tension and pedagogical thrust of Jesus' parable on persistent prayer.</p>
<blockquote class="greek-text">κἀκεῖνος ἔσωθεν ἀποκριθεὶς εἴπῃ, Μή μοι κόπους πάρεχε· ἤδη ἡ θύρα κέκλεισται, καὶ τὰ παιδία μου μετ’ ἐμοῦ εἰς τὴν κοίτην εἰσίν· οὐ δύναμαι ἀναστὰς δοῦναί σοι.<br>(Nestle 1904)</blockquote>
<b>Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):</b>
<ul>
<li>The Nestle 1904 text uses a comma (,) after <b class="greek-text">εἴπῃ</b> to introduce direct speech, whereas the SBLGNT (2010) uses an ano teleia (·) which functions similarly to a colon or semicolon.</li>
<li>No substantive lexical or grammatical differences are present in this verse between the Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT (2010) editions.</li>
</ul>
<p><b>Textual Criticism (NA28):</b> The textual tradition for Luke 11:7 is remarkably stable, with no significant variants affecting the core wording or the term <b class="greek-text">ἔσωθεν</b> across major manuscripts. The NA28 apparatus confirms the uniformity of this passage, indicating a high degree of certainty regarding the Greek text as transmitted.</p>
<p><b>Lexical Notes:</b><br>
<b class="greek-text">ἔσωθεν</b> (<i>esōthen</i>): According to BDAG (p. 402), this adverb primarily denotes "from within, from the inside." It can refer to a physical location (e.g., from inside a house, Mt 23:25-26; Lk 11:7) or an internal, non-physical origin (e.g., from within the human heart, Mk 7:21). The ambiguity in Luke 11:7 arises from these dual possibilities when combined with a verb of speaking. While not a term typically explored in KITTEL's TDNT for deep theological nuance, its spatial/internal ambiguity is critical here.<br>
<b class="greek-text">ἀποκριθείς</b> (<i>apokritheis</i>): An aorist participle of <b class="greek-text">ἀποκρίνομαι</b> ("to answer, reply"). BDAG (p. 105) indicates this verb typically refers to a verbal response. The participle often denotes a preceding or concurrent action, here, the act of answering prior to or simultaneous with speaking. Its combination with <b class="greek-text">εἴπῃ</b> strongly suggests an audible utterance.<br>
<b class="greek-text">εἴπῃ</b> (<i>eipē</i>): An aorist subjunctive of <b class="greek-text">λέγω</b> ("to say, to speak"). In this context of direct speech, it functions as the main verb, signifying the act of speaking (BDAG, p. 282). This verb, in particular, conventionally implies an audible, verbal communication.</p>
<h3>Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis</h3>
<p>The phrase <b class="greek-text">κἀκεῖνος ἔσωθεν ἀποκριθεὶς εἴπῃ</b> is central to the interpretative dilemma. Grammatically, <b class="greek-text">ἔσωθεν</b> modifies the action of "answering" (<b class="greek-text">ἀποκριθείς</b>) and "speaking" (<b class="greek-text">εἴπῃ</b>). The traditional understanding takes <b class="greek-text">ἔσωθεν</b> as a spatial adverb, indicating the neighbor's location <i>within the house</i> from which he utters his refusal. This reading aligns with the immediate narrative context of a locked door and sleeping children, emphasizing the inconvenience and the physical barrier to the request. The use of <b class="greek-text">ἀποκριθείς εἴπῃ</b> strongly supports an audible, verbal response.</p>
<p>Alternatively, the inquiry suggests <b class="greek-text">ἔσωθεν</b> might refer to an internal, unvoiced thought or a mumbling "to himself." While <b class="greek-text">ἔσωθεν</b> can carry an internal sense (e.g., Mark 7:21), its combination with <b class="greek-text">ἀποκριθείς εἴπῃ</b> typically precludes a purely internal, unheard thought. The verbs "to answer" and "to say" in Greek (as in most languages) imply an externalized, communicative act. However, one could argue that the words originate <i>from within the man's exasperation or unwillingness</i> as an internal source, even if they are then articulated, perhaps in a low or grudging tone. This would emphasize the profound reluctance emanating from his very being. A purely unspoken thought would strain the semantic range of <b class="greek-text">ἀποκριθείς εἴπῃ</b> in the absence of other contextual clues or a different verb of cognition.</p>
<p>Rhetorically, the interpretation impacts the parable's climax. If the neighbor speaks audibly from within, his rudeness and the physical barrier underscore the audacity of the persistent friend. If his refusal is purely internal, then the friend's persistence becomes even more remarkable, pushing against an unvoiced, yet perceived, resistance. The traditional interpretation, which implies an audible response, generally serves to heighten the dramatic irony of Jesus' teaching on persistence.</p>
<h3>Conclusions and Translation Suggestions</h3>
<p>Based on the lexical and grammatical analysis, the most textually supported interpretation understands the neighbor's response as an audible utterance. However, the nuance of <b class="greek-text">ἔσωθεν</b> can still be explored to emphasize the *source* or *nature* of that utterance.</p>
<ol>
<li>And he, answering from within the house, says, "Do not trouble me; the door is already shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything."<br><i>This translation represents the traditional and most widely accepted rendering, emphasizing the neighbor's spatial location and his direct, albeit reluctant, audible refusal.</i></li>
<li>And he, responding from his inner self, says, "Do not bother me; the door is already shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything."<br><i>This translation subtly shifts the emphasis of <b class="greek-text">ἔσωθεν</b> to the internal disposition or exasperation of the man, from which his words of refusal emanate, still implying an audible (perhaps grumbled or strained) utterance.</i></li>
<li>And that one, muttering to himself from within, says, "Do not trouble me; the door is already shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything."<br><i>This rendering attempts to capture the "thought" aspect proposed in the initial query, interpreting <b class="greek-text">ἔσωθεν</b> as an internal, almost subconscious utterance ("muttering to himself") that might be barely audible, or perhaps even an imagined response from the perspective of the persistent friend, acknowledging the tension with <b class="greek-text">ἀποκριθείς εἴπῃ</b>.</i></li>
</ol>
</body>
</html>
People who read this article also liked:
[AuthorRecommendedPosts]0 people found this article useful
0 people found this article useful
κἀκεῖνος ἔσωθεν ἀποκριθεὶς εἴπῃ· μή μοι κόπους πάρεχε· ἤδη ἡ θύρα κέκλεισται καὶ
τὰ παιδία μου μετʼ ἐμοῦ εἰς τὴν κοίτην εἰσίν· οὐ δύναμαι ἀναστὰς δοῦναί σοι.
As I’ve said on more than one occassion, “Context is king.” While I suppose
ἔσωθεν ESWQEN might be used for “to himself”, I don’t think that likely. Cf.
Lk 11.39, but even there it seems that the comparison is to the inside of a cup
as opposed to the outside. In Lk 7.39 when it definitely refers to one’s
“conversing” with himself it uses ἐν ἑαυτῷ EN hEAUTWi.
Now, for the context:
Notice that the one man is inside while we still need to determine where the
other might be (though the suspicion is that he would be outside since the
householder says “My chilren are in bed together with me.” Does he mean they
are all in one bed? Doubtful. He probably simply means “We’ve all gone to
bed.” Then note that he also says “The door is locked.” This would be of
little significance if he had opened the door and let his neighbor in. The
picture we have then is that the householder is inside speaking to his neighbor
who is outside and not simply talking to himself.
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
Sent: Mon, January 3, 2011 11:34:49 AM
Must esothen in Luke 11:7 refer to within the house or can it refer to within
the man. In other words, can it mean that he said the words in himself, i.e. he
thought them as opposed to the traditional interpretation that he spoke them
outloud from within the house? If Dr. Randall Buth is monitoring the list at
this time I’d appreciate any insights the hebrew might add.
kakeinos esothen apokritheis eipē mē moi kopous pareche ēdē ē thura kekleistai
kai ta paidia mou met emou eis tēn koitēn eisin ou dunamai anastas dounai soi
Thanks,
Greg Marquez
http://www.ivChristianCenter.com
—
Perhaps I didn’t make myself plain enough. The context of the story indicates
that the man inside was NOT simply thinking that he should tell his neighbor to
go away.
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]; George F Somsel
Sent: Mon, January 3, 2011 2:02:15 PM
I agree that the context is the issue. I’m suggesting that the context choice is
between:
The man inside shouted at his friend to go away, or
The man inside thought, I should tell my friend to go away.
I think the second fits the point of the story better particularly since it
avoids the strained interpretations of anaideia as involving some kind of
repetitiveness. If the man merely thought it then there is little basis for
assuming some kind of repetitive asking on the part of the friend who needed
bread.
Greg Marquez
http://www.ivChristianCenter.com
κἀκεῖνος ἔσωθεν ἀποκριθεὶς εἴπῃ· μή μοι κόπους πάρεχε· ἤδη ἡ θύρα κέκλεισται καὶ
τὰ παιδία μου μετʼ ἐμοῦ εἰς τὴν κοίτην εἰσίν· οὐ δύναμαι ἀναστὰς δοῦναί σοι.
________________________________
I agree that the context is the issue. I’m suggesting that the context
choice is between:
The man inside shouted at his friend to go away, or
The man inside thought, I should tell my friend to go away.
I think the second fits the point of the story better particularly
since it avoids the strained interpretations of anaideia as involving
some kind of repetitiveness. If the man merely thought it then there
is little basis for assuming some kind of repetitive asking on the
part of the friend who needed bread.
Greg Marquez
http://www.ivChristianCenter.com
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
—– Original Message —–
Sent: 4. januar 2011 00:02
I would say none of the above. To “think” or “say to oneself” can be expressed
as George said with EN hEAUTWi (Luke 7:39; 16:3, 18:4). It is also possible to
“say in your heart”, but that is more Hebrew than Greek (Rom 10:6; Rev 18:7).
While ESWQEN can refer to the inside of a person or internally as in Mark
7:21,23, Luke 11:39, 2 Cor 7:5, I do not see evidence that ESWQEN APOKRIQEIS
EIPHi can possibly mean “having answered and said inside himself”. The person
inside responded to the person outside without shouting – as that would wake up
the children. That makes perfect sense in context. It is understandable that
this friend was reluctant to get up at midnight to find bread and in the process
disturb his wife and maybe the children. Well, he might not do it because of
friendship and normal social obligation, but he may well do it if the other
person persists in asking. I can see nothing strained about repeating the
request, although ANAIDEIA does not mean repetition, but “lack of proper
restraint or consideration, intemperateness” (LSJ).
See also BDAG: “lack of sensitivity to what is proper, carelessness about the
good opinion of others, shamelessness, impertinence, impudence, ignoring of
convention (a fundamental cultural consideration in the Gr-Rom. world, here with
focus on tradition of hospitality) Lk 11:8, either of the one who is doing the
calling out (simply εἴπον vs. 5) to his friend within, in which case the
‘shamelessness’ consists in disturbing the peace at an inappropriate hour –
shameless disturbance (ἀ. itself does not mean ‘persistence’, of which the text
make no explicit mention; but many translations draw semantic support from the
explanation) – or …”
Iver Larsen
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
—
κἀκεῖνος ἔσωθεν ἀποκριθεὶς εἴπῃ· μή μοι κόπους πάρεχε· ἤδη ἡ θύρα κέκλεισται καὶ
τὰ παιδία μου μετʼ ἐμοῦ εἰς τὴν κοίτην εἰσίν· οὐ δύναμαι ἀναστὰς δοῦναί σοι.
As I’ve said on more than one occassion, “Context is king.” While I suppose
ἔσωθεν ESWQEN might be used for “to himself”, I don’t think that likely. Cf.
Lk 11.39, but even there it seems that the comparison is to the inside of a cup
as opposed to the outside. In Lk 7.39 when it definitely refers to one’s
“conversing” with himself it uses ἐν ἑαυτῷ EN hEAUTWi.
Now, for the context:
Notice that the one man is inside while we still need to determine where the
other might be (though the suspicion is that he would be outside since the
householder says “My chilren are in bed together with me.” Does he mean they
are all in one bed? Doubtful. He probably simply means “We’ve all gone to
bed.” Then note that he also says “The door is locked.” This would be of
little significance if he had opened the door and let his neighbor in. The
picture we have then is that the householder is inside speaking to his neighbor
who is outside and not simply talking to himself.
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
Sent: Mon, January 3, 2011 11:34:49 AM
Must esothen in Luke 11:7 refer to within the house or can it refer to within
the man. In other words, can it mean that he said the words in himself, i.e. he
thought them as opposed to the traditional interpretation that he spoke them
outloud from within the house? If Dr. Randall Buth is monitoring the list at
this time I’d appreciate any insights the hebrew might add.
kakeinos esothen apokritheis eipē mē moi kopous pareche ēdē ē thura kekleistai
kai ta paidia mou met emou eis tēn koitēn eisin ou dunamai anastas dounai soi
Thanks,
Greg Marquez
http://www.ivChristianCenter.com
—
I agree that the context is the issue. I’m suggesting that the context
choice is between:
The man inside shouted at his friend to go away, or
The man inside thought, I should tell my friend to go away.
I think the second fits the point of the story better particularly
since it avoids the strained interpretations of anaideia as involving
some kind of repetitiveness. If the man merely thought it then there
is little basis for assuming some kind of repetitive asking on the
part of the friend who needed bread.
Greg Marquez
http://www.ivChristianCenter.com
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
Perhaps I didn’t make myself plain enough. The context of the story indicates
that the man inside was NOT simply thinking that he should tell his neighbor to
go away.
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]; George F Somsel
Sent: Mon, January 3, 2011 2:02:15 PM
I agree that the context is the issue. I’m suggesting that the context choice is
between:
The man inside shouted at his friend to go away, or
The man inside thought, I should tell my friend to go away.
I think the second fits the point of the story better particularly since it
avoids the strained interpretations of anaideia as involving some kind of
repetitiveness. If the man merely thought it then there is little basis for
assuming some kind of repetitive asking on the part of the friend who needed
bread.
Greg Marquez
http://www.ivChristianCenter.com
κἀκεῖνος ἔσωθεν ἀποκριθεὶς εἴπῃ· μή μοι κόπους πάρεχε· ἤδη ἡ θύρα κέκλεισται καὶ
τὰ παιδία μου μετʼ ἐμοῦ εἰς τὴν κοίτην εἰσίν· οὐ δύναμαι ἀναστὰς δοῦναί σοι.
________________________________
—– Original Message —–
Sent: 4. januar 2011 00:02
I would say none of the above. To “think” or “say to oneself” can be expressed
as George said with EN hEAUTWi (Luke 7:39; 16:3, 18:4). It is also possible to
“say in your heart”, but that is more Hebrew than Greek (Rom 10:6; Rev 18:7).
While ESWQEN can refer to the inside of a person or internally as in Mark
7:21,23, Luke 11:39, 2 Cor 7:5, I do not see evidence that ESWQEN APOKRIQEIS
EIPHi can possibly mean “having answered and said inside himself”. The person
inside responded to the person outside without shouting – as that would wake up
the children. That makes perfect sense in context. It is understandable that
this friend was reluctant to get up at midnight to find bread and in the process
disturb his wife and maybe the children. Well, he might not do it because of
friendship and normal social obligation, but he may well do it if the other
person persists in asking. I can see nothing strained about repeating the
request, although ANAIDEIA does not mean repetition, but “lack of proper
restraint or consideration, intemperateness” (LSJ).
See also BDAG: “lack of sensitivity to what is proper, carelessness about the
good opinion of others, shamelessness, impertinence, impudence, ignoring of
convention (a fundamental cultural consideration in the Gr-Rom. world, here with
focus on tradition of hospitality) Lk 11:8, either of the one who is doing the
calling out (simply εἴπον vs. 5) to his friend within, in which case the
‘shamelessness’ consists in disturbing the peace at an inappropriate hour –
shameless disturbance (ἀ. itself does not mean ‘persistence’, of which the text
make no explicit mention; but many translations draw semantic support from the
explanation) – or …”
Iver Larsen
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
—