Love & The Public Good (part 2)

When reading about “respect” and “honor,” one must remember the culture of honor and shame, and understand this part of what Paul is saying accordingly.  Naturally, if the Christian has complied with his duty to be a voice to the rulers, doing good so as to receive their commendation (Romans 13:3b), with this doing of good the language of public benefaction; and if the church has been complicit in its responsibilities to care for orphans, widows, lepers (sick), and the poor, then the governing authorities will be able to restrict the scope of its activities to being “God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer” (13:4b), rather than engaging in all manners of activities with which the Christian will find disagreeable.  This then allows the Christian to pay taxes with a clear conscience, properly acknowledging their God’s provision of those charged with government functions. 

Of course, this also bears on the responsibility of the church to communicate the words of one who preached the kingdom of the Creator God, as the Gospel of Luke records of John the Baptist that “Tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him, ‘Teacher, what should we do?’  He told them, ‘Collect no more than you are required to.’” (Luke 3:12-13).  The idea that tax collectors would collect only that which they were required to collect would have been quite the radical notion in that day, as it was well understood that tax collectors, quite simply, collected more than what was required, lining their pockets and enriching themselves with the excess.  Yes, this issue of government and taxes, as presented by Paul, must be understood within the context of the church’s responsibility to embody the love of its God by effectively preaching the Gospel of the kingdom and living out in their own community the principles of that kingdom. 

If a government, on this side of the cross, has become oppressive, with oppression generally linked to high levels of taxation (while understanding that the average person under the Roman empire paid well over half of their income---in the course of a subsistence lifestyle---in taxes, with this often leading to debt and ultimately slavery, which brings in the issue of “owe no one anything”), then the church of the Christ need only look at itself and its failure to remain true to Jesus’ message of the advent of the kingdom of the covenant God, and of that God’s desire to bring the rule of heaven to earth, as it has most likely retreated into an escapist fixation that limits the acceptance of Jesus’ challenging and world-altering message to going to heaven when one dies. 

It is worthwhile to re-read this section as a whole so that one can frame it within a statement made very early in this letter to the Romans.  Paul writes “Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.  For the commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet,’ (and if there is any other commandment) are summed up in this, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’  Love does no wrong to a neighbor.  Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (13:7-10). 

Speaking In Tongues (part 5)

As a denizen of the first century Greco-Roman world and as a popular teacher that would have been increasingly viewed through messianic lenses, Jesus would have been quite conscientious of the way that He was perceived by the public.  That said, He appears to be almost completely unconcerned with the honor and shame system.  It almost seems as if He viewed it as being quite backwards, with actions seen as most honorable by the wider public, perceived by Jesus as being shameful, and vice versa. 

At times, Jesus accepts the honors being afforded to Him, but generally He only accepts honoring or honorific statements when they come from those that do not possess any public honor (tax collectors, lepers, those that have been possessed by demons, unclean women, etc…).  When the rich or the rulers attempt to honor Him (and thus flatter themselves and attempt to accrue honor by their own association with Him), perhaps by calling Him “good,” He disavows the approbation.  He routinely speaks of the first being last and the last being first.  He interacts with tax collectors, who may have money and a measure of power, but who are not looked upon as being honorable in the least.  He touches lepers.  He allows dishonorable women to touch Him.

He is more than happy to take the lowest place at a meal, eschewing the places of honor and instructing His followers to do the same.  He washes the feet of His disciples, which is the role of a slave and a reminder of the slave’s shameful place.  He allows children who, being children, do not have a place in the honor and shame pursuit (they do not have honor or shame accorded to them), to come to Him.  When they do, He tells those who are listening to Him that they must enter the kingdom of Israel’s God as little children---unconcerned with the pursuit of honor or the avoidance of shame (which has nothing to do with a “childlike faith”).  He ultimately ended up on a cross, which was the lowest and most shameful place of all, and He went there willingly as He embraced the role of Israel for the world. 

These things (the honor and shame culture along with Jesus’ treatment of this broad social construct) would have been well understood by Jesus’ followers and those that made up the believing communities that attempted to live out what it meant to be the renewed Israel that represented the rule of the Creator God through the remembrance of and reflection upon the orally transmitted Jesus tradition.  When Paul wrote his letters, especially what are considered to be the early letters, there were at that point no known and codified written record of the life of Jesus.  There were no Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as they exist in their present form.  Paul doesn’t have his own body of work or the letters from other apostles from which to draw, nor do the early believers.  What they had were the words of the apostles. 

Those apostles shared their stories of Jesus (a relatively unified story to be sure, though with different emphases, as is obvious from the variety of presentations of the life of Jesus that can be seen in the Gospels) so that those who threw in their lot with the crucified and resurrected King (the church) might do their best to model out the example that He provided, as the movement of the kingdom of the Creator God began to spread through the world via the instrument of the church, with this spread understood to have been motivated by the Spirit of God.  They too were to be motivated to eschew honor and embrace shame, especially if such brought glory to their King and to their God and extended the reach and rule of that Kingdom as they conscientiously strived to bring heaven to earth by mimicking the counter-cultural behavior of Jesus. 

Handsome Men (part 2 of 2)

Certainly, because Joseph was a powerful ruler, even if it was in Egypt, there could naturally be a desire for a ruler of Israel to be very much like Joseph.  Though it is scant, there is a growing sense that this issue of appearance is an important one when it comes to Israel’s rulers and the way the people wanted to think about their rulers.  This is quite understandable in the day of mass media, but it is not at all difficult to comprehend what would seem to be a natural human desire to have attractive leaders set over them. 

This should be kept in mind when first encountering David in the Scriptural narrative.  As is well known, the Creator God is said to have rejected Saul as king.  Samuel, the one whose failure with his sons has lead to the desire for a king, goes to anoint another man as king.  When David is brought before Samuel we learn that “he was ruddy, with attractive eyes and a handsome appearance” (16:12b).  Strangely, this is after Samuel has viewed the first of David’s brothers and was impressed by his physical appearance. 

This experience with the sons of Jesse must have reminded Samuel of when Saul first stood before him.  However, with that in mind the Lord can be heard to say “Don’t be impressed by his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him” (16:7b), which serves as an explicit reminder of Saul’s having been rejected.  The Lord is reported to have gone on to say “God does not view things the way men do.  People look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (16:7c).  With this said, it is indeed strange that David’s appearance is mentioned at all, let alone mentioned in such positive terms.  One might think that it would have been the opposite when it came to David, and that Samuel was going to anoint one who was unattractive, but this was apparently not going to be the case. 

Eventually Saul dies and David takes the throne as he was anointed to do.  Frankly, he fares little better than Saul.  In many ways, he was more corrupted by the power than was Saul.  When those who hear the story of Saul, followed by the story of David (with that story naturally and appropriately including David’s adultery and murder) while considering that Saul was rejected from the throne of Israel because he had inappropriately offered a sacrifice, the hearer simply knows that Israel’s God is going to remove David from the throne as well. 

As if to confirm that this is indeed going to take place in due course, David’s son Absalom is introduced into the narrative.  During the course of Absalom’s story, adhering closely to the pattern that has been previously established and apparently as if to confirm that Absalom is indeed going to take the throne of Israel, the author reports that “in all Israel everyone acknowledged that there was no man as handsome as Absalom.  From the sole of his feet to the top of his head he was perfect in appearance” (2 Samuel 14:25). 

Unsurprisingly then, he indeed does take the throne (David is temporarily removed), and even experiences an anointing to confirm what was his justly and prophecy (calling corrupt leaders to account) confirming gained position.  However, as had been the case with both Saul and his father, he eventually engages in an action that is displeasing to the Lord of Israel and is removed from the throne, allowing David (one of the handsome men of Scripture) to regain his rule.  

Love On John's Terms (part 22)

Without rehearsing the history of attempted rebellions under Israel’s various oppressors, a simple acknowledgement that a long line of attempts at violent overthrow (most of which came to naught) backed by messianic claims and provided tenuous foundation by hopes concerning their God responding to rebellious actions by acting on behalf of His people to legitimize the activity and establish His kingdom will suffice.  That acknowledged, it is possible to confidently propose that when Jesus speaks of thieves and robbers that came before Him, He was making a reference to previous messianic claimants. 

Jesus was referring to all of those who had risen up in revolt in efforts to overthrow the nations that ruled over the land of Israel, grasping at that which was not theirs to take and attempting to set themselves up as kings and rulers of the Creator God’s land and people.  Not only could this be directed towards all of those that could be looked back upon as potential and failed messiah figures, but it could be rightly applied to Israel’s then current ruling and dynastic family, as Jesus adds “the sheep did not listen to them” (John 10:8b).  Certainly, there were very few in Israel who looked upon the Herods as legitimate rulers of the covenant people.  In many ways, they were as despised as the Romans. 

Jesus repeats Himself and says, “I am the door.  If anyone enters through Me, He will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture” (10:9).  Keeping in mind that the notion of being “saved” had everything to do with participating in the fullness of the Creator God’s covenant faithfulness by participating in the kingdom of God, the renewal of creation (by those living at the time of its expected in-breaking), or the resurrection of the righteous dead (by those who had died as people faithful to the covenant), the covenant people were in constant expectation of the re-establishment of national sovereignty and subsequent superiority to the surrounding nations, as in the halcyon days of David and Solomon. 

By and large, the covenant people were expecting their God to break in upon history and set up His kingdom in and through them.  This was a motivating force behind the repeated messianic movements and claimants, and the associated revolutionary activities.  Many looked to the long-held promise of a land of their own in which they ruled themselves, knowing that as long as the present situation of being ruled by foreign powers continued, that they were still in a state of exile from their God’s promises to them. 

It is in this context that Jesus informs the people that the way in which they were attempting to regain control of their land was not the way that their God had intended for them.  It was not the door, so to speak.  Jesus told them that He was the door, and that entrance into the kingdom of the Creator God was going to be provided through Him and through following on the path of love and self-sacrifice that He was forging.  The people would find their pasture, their land, through what it was that He was going to do, through their believing in Him as Lord and KIng, and through their loyally adhering to His instructions and examples concerning the way that He was presenting---which would ultimately be the way of the shame and suffering and the cross. 

Presumably turning His thoughts to the thieves and robbers who were the pretenders and presumptuous usurpers that had come before Him (in no way at all is the Satan in view here as the thief and robber), while also considering those that would have followed after Jesus and been known to the Johannine community (especially considering the fact of the destruction of the Jewish revolt of 66-70, the destruction of the Temple, and the burning of Jerusalem), Jesus offers commentary on their methods by saying that “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy” (10:10a).  This method was not the Creator God’s intention for His people and His kingdom.  Then, as it is now, it was not the Creator God’s design for His chosen people to establish and extend His kingdom by force of arms and violent revolution.  There was no need to steal and kill and destroy, as such would be quite counter-productive to His plans.  That is the method of the thieves and robbers.   

Proclaim The Lord's Death (part 2 of 2)

In the second chapter of the first letter to the Corinthian congregation, Paul reports that he “decided to be concerned about nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (2:2), while also mentioning that if the rulers of the age truly understood the message of Jesus, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (2:8b).  Though thoughts of the resurrected Christ naturally permeate the entire background of the letter, as there would be no church apart from a resurrected Messiah, and though there is a reference to the raising of Jesus in the fourteenth verse of the sixth chapter, the movement of this letter suggests Paul’s desire that the Gospel (Jesus is Lord) be closely (and foolishly, as he will point out) associated with the crucifixion, and therefore the cross.

Why should this be the case?  Why is it that Paul apparently believes that it is the crucifixion, rather than the Resurrection, that should be the locus of attention and proclamation when the church comes together to take up the bread and the cup (share an egalitarian meal)?  Is it because the cross, rather than being looked upon as a thing of beauty and as an object of grace, was considered to be the lowest place of ultimate suffering and complete shame?  Might this be a reflection on the traditions then in circulation in which Jesus is understood to have instructed His disciples to take up their cross and follow Him---willfully going to the places of suffering and shame, because Jesus is Lord, as the means by which the kingdom of the Creator God is made manifest, established, and advanced? 

Putting aside the fact that it was rather obvious that there were individuals in the church at Corinth that needed to be reminded of the willingness to endure suffering and shame that is demanded of those that proclaim loyalty to Jesus, which is made clear by the language that precedes Paul’s recitation of the tradition of the Lord’s Supper, the focus on the death of the Christ situates those who sit together at the meal table at the foot of the cross, as they are become identified with their crucified Lord, and are branded as He was, as foolish and shameful---as failures according to the way the world has always looked at such things.

What will it mean to be identified with a crucified Christ?  As the new age, signaled by the Resurrection, looms large in the background, what will it mean to truly proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes?  Paul provides his hearers with a guide in the fourth chapter of the letter.  As the believer listens and considers the communion in which he or she gratefully participate, this guide is indelibly stamped by Jesus’ crucifixion as Paul writes “For, I think God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, as men condemned to die, because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to people. We are fools for Christ… We are weak… we are dishonored!  To the present hour we are hungry and thirsty, poorly clothed, brutally treated, and without a roof over our heads.  We do hard work, toiling with our own hands.  When we are verbally abused, we respond with a blessing, when persecuted, we endure, when people lie about us, we answer in a friendly manner.  We are the world’s dirt and scum, even now” (4:9-13). 

May the believer indeed be empowered to be the spectacle of the cross to an on-looking world, proclaiming the Lord’s death at His table and in the world in which He reigns---demonstrating that reign by living as part of a community that embodies the cross (suffering and self-sacrificial love).  Let not the members of the congregation of those that proclaim allegiance to Jesus as Lord take up the bread and the cup alone to signal their union with the Christ, but indeed, let there be a commitment to taking up that vile instrument of death and of the power that attempts to stand against the purpose of the Creator, gladly enduring its foolishness, its suffering, and its shame so that the Lord and God, Jesus the Christ, might be glorified and His kingdom might be extended.  When sharing in the cup, let it be done as a sincere and faithful attempt to always and forever remain the humble tradents, adherents, and servants of the crucified King and the cruciform kingdom.                

Problems For James (part 4 of 4)

It must be remembered that these were highly charged times in a number of ways.  Much like Jesus, who expected His listeners to have ears to hear, James did not offer direct criticism.  Such a thing would have been unwise, especially when attempting to build a nascent, revolutionary movement that acts in ways that are increasingly contrary to the prevailing cultural ethos.  Presumably then, the “rich” demands to be understood not in a general sense as those with money, but primarily as the rulers of the people, and those who have gained their wealth by oppression (and possibly corruption in connection with the Temple).  The same type of language can be observed with writers such as Paul and John, as they cloaked their subversive words, whether those words were subversive of the authorities of Israel or Rome, in what might be considered to be obscure or relatively innocuous language. 

However, what might be obscure to the modern reader would likely be readily understandable to those that comprised the community to whom the words were initially directed.  Indeed, to this end, Paul can be regularly heard taking up much of the language of the Caesar cult in his letters---a language and relatively well-known liturgy that would have been quite familiar to those that received his letters (a prime example of this is the “from faith to faith” statement of Romans 1:17), but which would be heard quite differently by those that live at a tremendous time and distance from the Apostle and his world.

These early believers and Jesus-confessors, living in altogether different times with a message that challenged the power structures of their entire world (both Jewish and Greco-Roman), were required to speak and write in a way that forced the recipients of their words, whether they be spoken or written, to make the necessary connections and extrapolations that would convey right understanding.  It is incumbent upon all those who approach Scripture so as to join in its story, if there is a sincere desire to rightly hear and understand even the smallest portion of what is being communicated, to make the attempt to become immersed in that same world.  

This requires those that are not denizens of the first century, to engage in a serious, sustained, and strenuous mental effort to put aside cultural conditions and geographically and chronologically defined worldviews that cannot be foisted upon the world of the New Testament.  This most definitely must be done, quite obviously, to understand Jesus’ words, and indeed all of the words of Scripture, lest one shortchange the words and intentions of the one called Lord and God, and so go about one’s merry way of ignorant and prideful spirituality. 

A Table In Philippi (part 2 of 2)

Having said that, it is interesting to see how early Christians put all of this familiar language and imagery to use.  Certainly it would have been said of the Caesar that “the gods exalted him and have given him the name above every name, and that at the name of Caesar every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Caesar is Lord.”  Unlike Caesar, however, it was said of Jesus that His Lordship over all (including Caesar) came about through a process that the rulers of the world would not have supposed. 

Whereas Caesar positioned himself as the son of god (divi filius) and laid claim to his rule according to this proclamation, Jesus is said to have “existed in the form of God” but “did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped.”  Whereas Caesar exalted himself and enslaved others to extend and enrich the empire of the one referred to as the son of god, to bring about the kingdom of the Creator God, Jesus countered the Caesar “by taking on the form of a slave.”  Whereas Caesar and his sycophantic worshipers lauded him as being a man among men and therefore endowed by the gods with the right to rule because of the superiority of his very nature, the true Emperor, that being Jesus, came “looking like other men” and “sharing in human nature.”  The dichotomy that is being drawn is stark indeed. 

Caesar, of course, inflicted his power (the pax Romana) upon the peoples of the world by the looming threat of death at the end of a sword, whereas Jesus became “obedient to the point of death.”  The Roman cross and its accursed death was the emblem of power of Caesar and of his right to unchallenged rule.  All those that presumed to challenge his divinely appointed and sanctioned rule would meet their horrible ends upon that emblem. 

So naturally, as the hymn continues the contrast, Jesus, as the anti-Caesar, went to “death on a cross,” with His Resurrection proving that the great powers of the world (Rome, Caesar, death) had no power over Him or over any member of the kingdom of the Creator God.  Whereas the cross was meant to shame and humiliate, it became Jesus’ path to honor and exaltation (as the Philippian passage clearly demonstrates the kingdom ideal of the first becoming last and the last becoming first).  This, of course, was contrary to all thinking in that day. 

The fact that the early church so freely employed the language of death by crucifixion, within a world that had a robust understanding of the explicit implications of such a death (you’re not a king), and within a Jewish world that saw such a thing as evidence of their God’s highest cursing, gives tremendous weight to the firm belief in the fact of Jesus’ physical Resurrection into a world that was materially changed by that very fact.  The Resurrection stands as the only explanation for the language about Jesus that is here employed.  It remains to be concluded that if there was the smallest doubt that Jesus did not physically raise from the dead, then the church would certainly not give triumphant voice to the fact of His crucifixion at the hands of Rome.    

Light Of The World (part 1 of 2)

Then Jesus spoke out again, “I am the light of the world.  The one who follows Me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.” – John 8:12  (NET)

Though these words from Jesus are reported here in verse twelve of the eighth chapter of John, it is quite likely that is should actually be the first verse of the chapter.  In truth, it should be a part of the story of the seventh chapter, as with His words, Jesus appears to be addressing an issue raised in chapter seven.  Of course, it is very much worth noting that until more than a thousand years after the composition of John’s Gospel, there were no set chapter divisions.  In this case, the chapter division provides for a rather unnatural and perhaps ultimately unhelpful break in the narrative flow. 

At any rate, the primary reason that it should be the first verse of the chapter is that it is generally agreed upon that the story of the woman caught in adultery and thrown before Jesus for judgment, which appears in the section from John 7:53 through John 8:11, is actually not contained in what are recognized to be the earliest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John.  Thus, it was almost certainly not originally a part of John’s Gospel (though the story may certainly have been known in the community for/by which the Gospel was composed, and some manuscripts have even placed the story after Luke 21:38.  Now, this is not to say that the account is not true or that it did not occur, but that it should not rightly be found here in this Gospel. 

Indeed, as something to which has previously been alluded, the inclusion of the story of the woman taken in adultery appears to interrupt a singular train of thought being communicated by the author, thus artificially and unfortunately disconnecting what is presented in chapter eight from what is presented in chapter seven.  What is it that is going on in the seventh chapter?  In it, Jesus has secretly come to Jerusalem during the Feast of Tabernacles.  This is one of the three fall feasts of the Jewish calendar (generally referred to as Trumpets, Atonement, Tabernacles), that mark the beginning of the Jewish New Year. 

There, it can be read that Jesus “went up, not openly but in secret.  So the Jewish leaders were looking for Him at the feast” (7:10b-11a).  It is safe to say, and the author probably intends to communicate, that there was an aura of expectancy around Jesus, and accordingly, “There was a lot of grumbling about Him among the crowds.  Some were saying, ‘He is a good man,’ but others, “He deceives the common people’.” (7:12).  Either way, the expectancy concerning Him was palpable, with Jesus causing a stir and making an impact.

So, making His appearance in Jerusalem and making Himself known in spite of the inherent and apparent danger in doing so, Jesus bursts on the scene in the middle of the feast, making His presence felt by teaching in the Temple courts.  His wise words are reported to have provoked astonishment amongst the leaders of the people.  With what is demonstrated to be a keen sense of discernment, Jesus says, “My teaching is not from Me, but from the One Who sent Me” (7:16).  With this, we find that His public speaking being all the more astonishing, in that with these types of words, he is provoking great personal risk in its undertaking.  We are able to learn that (or have that sense confirmed) when we read that “some of the residents of Jerusalem began to say, ‘Isn’t this the man they are trying to kill?  Yet here He is, speaking publicly, and they are saying nothing to Him’.” (7:25-26a) 

One can certainly imagine how quickly talk of such words would spread through the crowds, thereby bringing the inevitable conclusion of “Do the rulers really know that this man is the Christ?” (7:26b)  This, however, presented a firm dilemma, because as it pertained to the messiah, there appears to have been a generally held proposition that “Whenever the Christ comes, no one will know where he comes from” (7:27b).  The dilemma is confirmed when the people are to be found saying, “But we know where this man comes from” (7:27a).  Thus we have here an indication of doubt concerning the potential messianic status of this Jesus character.  Added to this doubt however, was the growing consensus about Jesus, and the growing number of those that believed Him to be the Messiah, which is reflected in the question of “Whenever the Christ comes, He won’t perform more miraculous signs than this Man, will he?” (7:31b).     

Unrighteous Judge (part 1 of 2)

And the Lord said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge says.” – Luke 18:6  (ESV)

What did the unrighteous judge say?  Backing up a couple verses, we find the judge saying, “Though I neither fear God nor respect man, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will give her justice, so that she will not beat me down by her continual coming” (18:4-5).  Not only does the judge say this of himself, but this is what is reported of him in the second verse, which tells us that “he neither feared God nor respected man” (18:2b).  The widow in this parable was one that kept coming to him and saying “Give me justice against my adversary” (18:3b).  After reporting the words of both the widow and the judge, we find Jesus saying, “Hear what the unrighteous judge says” (18:6).  From there, He goes on to say, “And will not God give justice to His elect, who cry to Him day and night?  Will He delay long over them?” (18:7). 

When we look at the verses of this parable, it is natural for us to see Jesus shifting His focus following His statement about what the unrighteous judge has said.  It is natural, because believers tend to think of themselves as God’s elect and the ultimate recipients and beneficiaries of God’s justice.  However, it is possible to reframe the statement in a way that finds Him continuing along the same path without a shift in the focus of His message.  Before doing that, it is necessary to consider the context of the setting.  The context is His being asked by the Pharisees a question concerning the kingdom of God, and when it would come.  In response, Jesus told them that “the kingdom of God is in the midst of you” (17:21b).  Based on the wider perspective of Luke’s Gospel and its kingdom movement, we know that with this statement, Jesus was talking about His kingdom.

With that as the context, and with Jesus’ antagonism of the Pharisees and the rulers of the people a recurring theme throughout the Gospels, it is possible to see Jesus casting the nation of Israel itself in the role of the “unrighteous judge.”  How can this be?  Israel had been charged with extending the blessings of God’s covenant to all peoples.  This was to be done, at least partially, through their keeping of the law, which would bring them untold blessings, and cause the Gentiles to come to Israel to find the source of their blessings, through which they would receive the knowledge of God.  Israel had not done this.  They had forsaken their Creator God.  Repeatedly, their history informs us that they had turned to idols.  They had been destroyed and exiled, and even though a portion of the people had been returned to their land, they were still under the heel of oppressive rulers, which was what God had promised to them if they forsook His covenant.  In this, it could be said that they neither feared God nor respected man, because they did not keep their God’s laws and they did not care to be a light to the Gentiles for the glory of their God. 

So if Israel is the unjust judge, then the widow is all of the Gentile nations, coming to Israel that they may know Israel’s Lord.  If we frame the parable in this way, we can see that any keeping of the covenant that extended God’s blessings beyond the people of Israel, so that they might be bestowed on Gentile nations (the families of the earth), was done reluctantly and with an eye towards nothing more than self-preservation, rather than the glorification of God. 

Keeping in mind the Pharisees’ question about the Kingdom of God, and our positioning of Israel as the unjust judge, we can then move on to the questioning statements “And will not God give justice to His elect, who cry to Him day and night?  Will He delay long over them?” (18:7).  We can hear this as a question concerning Israel’s total restoration from their cursing and what was really a continuing exile, since the land of promise was not truly their own.  The words of the unjust judge represent Israel’s expectation of triumph over its oppressors and rulers, through their messiah, as they presume on their God, speaking of themselves in haughty terms as God’s elect, declaring that they are crying to Him day and night, and imploring God to cease His delay and return power to national Israel.