Progressive reflections on the lectionary #58

Monday 17th March 2025

Luke 13:1-9: The hidden voice of opposition

There are two parts to the reading this week - the first part (vv1-5) deals with some real life questions of sin/debt and suffering. The second part (vv6-9) is a parable to do with the fruitfulness, or not, of a fig tree. These two run together, but here I’m going to deal mainly with the first part.

When I write these reflections I’m always drawing on the work of others, but usually through ‘miscellaneous’ readings, in other words, things I’ve read over considerable periods of time, random papers, books and etc. In this case though I have a proper source to acknowledge: Kenneth Bailey’s ‘Through Peasant Eyes’, which is a really interesting book if you like that sort of thing (by ‘that sort of thing’ I mean nerdy books about the Bible). So - full disclaimer: whatever I write here draws somewhat heavily on Bailey’s original work.

I will just preface this by saying that I find Bailey to be unusual, there aren’t many writers that do what he does, and certainly in terms of this passage, people tend, I think, to underplay the political aspect of what’s going on here. Bailey doesn’t do that.

The cartoon dog Snoopy used to begin, and end, his novels with the purple prose phrase: “It was a dark and stormy night…” - a little reminder that writers like a bit of drama. “A man enters a room with a gun…” is another basic dramatic premise. We have a similar thing here. Although the text usually reads: “At that very time there were some present who…” Bailey reminds us that this is a translation issue, other traditions have words along the lines of “then some came who…”

In other words this begins with the arrival of some people with shocking news: “about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.” That does sound like big news indeed.

Who would bring this news, what was their motivation? Of course we don’t know for sure, because Luke doesn’t tell us. Whatever one might want to say about Luke the evangelist, his work at times leans towards a somewhat centrist political approach, he doesn’t play up the Jewish nationalist cause - the opposite seems to be true in fact, perhaps because his two volume work (Luke-Acts) had a particularly persuasive role to play in Rome… but that’s another story.

Post colonial readers suggest that what’s happening here is that Jewish nationalists come to Jesus to report an atrocity that should outrage him and other like minded folk. Pilate has killed some Galileans (read insurrectionists) in the temple. Death and defilement from the Roman governor. These visitors want Jesus’ response - what does he have to say to this? Are they testing his loyalty? It’s hard to say.

The conventional response that you’ll find in commentaries here and there is that Jesus uses the opportunity to talk about repentance from sin, and the natural follow on is that we all should do likewise. In other words, they take a ‘spiritual’ approach. Of course, I don’t accept that there is a real distinction to be made, in the Jesus tradition, between spiritual and political, but I certainly don’t think that this passage should be read without any relation to politics. Let’s stick with the conventional take for a moment:

“He asked them, "Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other Galileans? No, I tell you, but unless you repent you will all perish as they did.” (13:2-3)

The conventional, spiritualised, response is to link sin and suffering, and to say that we’re all sinners so we will all suffer unless we repent. Then Jesus goes on to say this:

“Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam fell on them-do you think that they were worse offenders than all the other people living in Jerusalem No, I tell you, but unless you repent you will all perish just as they did."

There’s been much searching of the historical record to find this incident, to no avail. Nobody can find a record of this, but clearly there’s an incident that was current at the time to which this refers.

Bailey notes an interesting interpretation, one reading, he says, posits that this refers to the building of an aqueduct, a Roman building project for which money had been taken from the temple treasury. (“We’re going to build that aqueduct, and they’re going to pay for it”). In the course of the building a site accident occurred, and the labourers working on it (collaborating with the Romans) were killed.

We start to get a different perspective with Bailey’s insights here - because Jesus’ response to the breaking news becomes a political challenge in itself.

People arrive to test Jesus with a story of a Roman atrocity, is he really committed to the separatist cause? How will he respond? He responds by saying that, actually, this is the logical fate of people in this militarised society. Think about the people who were killed working for the Romans, they weren’t any worse than other Jerusalem folk. Effectively he’s saying: ‘everybody is bound up in this evil (Roman/imperial) system of oppression and violence, and it inevitably leads to death.’

The second part of the passage, a separate story told in parable form, illustrates a linked idea.

"A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came looking for fruit on it and found none…” (13:6)

The fig tree represents the leaders of the Jewish people who are bearing no fruit - what should be come of them? Should they be got rid of? Dug up, uprooted?

“'Sir, let it alone for one more year, until I dig around it and put manure on it. If it bears fruit next year, well and good, but if not, you can cut it down.'" (13: 8-9)

They too must have a chance, a chance to change their ways, a chance to tur to God’s ways of mercy, justice, and righteousness. The parable is left open - will they do this? They have the chance. And if they don’t, things won’t end well for them. Spoiler: things didn’t end well for them.

The passage’s two stories are separate but linked - the first speaks of the need for everyone to change their ways in the face of the inevitable death that comes with living under Roman occupation. This might be understood as ‘spiritual’ but it’s also a political repentance. The two concepts are not separate. The second story identifies that just as the people need to change, so too do the leaders. Everything has to change - if it doesn’t, then this is going to end badly. And of course, it did.

This blog is taken from Simon's Substack email series, to subscribe please go to https://simonjcross.substack.c...

Image: A protestor holds up a banner saying ‘No Justice No peace’ at a political demonstration. Photo by Clay Banks on Unsplash