Theodicy or Hypocrisy?

Below is a rough translation and some initial comments regarding Luke 13:1-9, the gospel lection for the third Sunday of Lent. The text seems clearly to have two parts – as is reflected in many translations that use subheadings. But, it is equally clear that Luke sees these two parts as interrelated. A significant interpretive issue would be naming the nature of the relation. I will offer some thoughts about that below. As usual, your comments – good, bad, or ugly – are always welcomed. Well, not the ugly ones, but you know what I mean. 

It just so happens that the Narrative Lectionary reading for the third Sunday of Lent is the latter portion of this text, 13:6-9. Treating vv. 6-9 separately seems to offer a very different set of possibilities for interpretation and preaching. 

¹ Παρῆσαν δέ τινες ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ καιρῷ ἀπαγγέλλοντες αὐτῷ περὶ τῶν Γαλιλαίωνὧν τὸ αἷμα Πιλᾶτος ἔμιξεν μετὰ τῶν θυσιῶν αὐτῶν.

Yet some were coming in that time bringing news to him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate mixed with their sacrifices.  

Παρῆσαν: IAI 3p, πάρειμι to come

ἀπαγγέλλοντες: PAPart, nmp, ἀπαγγέλλω,1) to bring tidings (from a person or a thing), bring word, report  2) to proclaim, to make known openly, declare 

ἔμιξεν: AAI 3s, μίγνυμι, 1) to mix, mingle   

1. This verse begins with the conjunction δὲ (it is the 2^ndword, but it is called a ‘postpositive’ word because it is usually translated as the first word). δὲ can signify continuation (and), contrast (but), or change (then) depending on the feel of the context. Here, Jesus has begun to address the huge crowd in 12:54. The nature of the news that some folks are bringing to Jesus might indicate that a change of topic within the same stream of conversation has come up. Typically, I would use ‘then’ for such a case. But, Luke adds “at that time” which would make ‘then’ redundant. When in doubt, I fall back on ‘yet’ as a translation of δὲ. See vv. 6, 7, and 8 below for other possibilities.

2. This is such an intriguing manner of putting things -“whose blood Pilate mixed with their sacrifices.” If those sacrifices themselves were blood sacrifices, this would be not only a brutal act of bloodshed but also an ironic act of blood on top of blood, the sacrifice of the sacrificers. See note 4 below.

3. And they were Galileans. I've often felt that there is a tension - especially in Mark's gospel - between Galilean piety and Judean piety, with Jesus clearly on the side of the Galileans. I'm trying to remember any stories of Jesus participating in sacrifices as a form of worship. Beyond the birth/circumcision/presentation narrative in Luke and the event of the Passover with no details, I'm not remembering any sacrificial motifs in the gospels. Anyone? 

4. Another point of ignorance here is this awful event itself. The narration seems to refer to it, not introduce it, which presumes the audience knows all about it. (Another reminder that even when reading the gospels we are reading someone else's mail.) One might imagine some Galileans made their way to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices. Pilate, whose cruelty was one cloth with the kind of vicious paranoia that we see in other rulers in the Roman Empire, seems to have slaughtered them while they were in the process of worshiping. One would imagine that all of Jerusalem would be in an uproar or filled with fear. Worth noting is that Jesus is a Galilean on his way to Jerusalem. It makes me wonder if some of those bearing this news were suggesting that Jesus lay low for a while. 

5. Another possibility is to place this within the ongoing oppression of the Roman occupation of Israel, like enforcing servitude for building the aqueducts, etc., which often placed Judeans and Galileans in perilous circumstances. Ched Myers has an insightful take on the relationship between this persecution and the tower disaster here. 

 ² καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Δοκεῖτε ὅτι οἱ Γαλιλαῖοιοὗ τοι ἁμαρτωλοὶ παρὰ πάντας τοὺς Γαλιλαίους ἐγένοντο, ὅτι ταῦτα πεπόνθασιν;

And answering he said to them, “Are you supposing ‘Those Galileans among all Galileans became sinners, that they have suffered these things’?

ἀποκριθεὶς: APPart nsm, ἀποκρίνομαι, 1) to give an answer to a question proposed, to answer  2) to begin to speak, but always where something has preceded  (either said or done) to which the remarks refer

εἶπεν: AAI 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak  1a) affirm over, maintain

Δοκεῖτε: PAI 2pl, δοκέω, 1) to be of opinion, think, suppose 

οὗτοι: 

ἐγένοντο: AMI, 3pl, γίνομαι, 1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being  2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen 

πεπόνθασιν: PerfAI, 3pl, πάσχω, 1) to be affected or have been affected, to feel, have a  sensible experience, to undergo  1a) in a good sense, to be well off, in good case  1b) in a bad sense, to suffer sadly, be in a bad plight 

1. This question moves the tragic massacre, and the transmission of the news about it, into a different light. It seems that the news was given less like a morning update or even a warning, but with some kind of presumption about the character of those Galileans, if God let them be killed while making a sacrifice. I'm thinking about the unfortunate Uzzah, who reached out his hand to steady the ark of the covenant in II Samuel 6:7 and was struck down; or the legend that the priest that entered the holy of holies would wear a rope around his waist, just in case he was making the sacrifices unworthily and was struck down and they had to retrieve him. Was there some kind of legendary curriculum that would suggest anyone slaughtered during sacrifices had it coming in some way? This is thin ice, but I'm trying to make sense of the directional change from the tragedy in v.1 to the theological issue in v.2.

2. ὅτι: The conjunction ὅτι appears 2x in this verse. It can be translated either ‘that’ or ‘because’ or it can introduce a thought or a quote. Most translations have the first ὅτι as “that” and the second as “because.” The problem then becomes the verb ἐγένοντο. It gets translated as “were,” when an aorist form of the verb ‘to be’ is common and would serve that purpose better. I am interpreting the first ὅτι as introducing what it is that they are supposing. 

3. The contrast in the supposition is between ‘those’ and ‘all.’ Those Galileans – among all Galileans – became sinners. So, Pilate killed them or perhaps God let Pilate kill them.

 ³ οὐχί, λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀλλ 'ἐὰν μὴ μετανοῆτε πάντες ὁμοίως ἀπολεῖσθε.

No, I say to you, but unless you repent all of you will likewise perish.  

λέγω: PAI 1s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak  1a) affirm over, maintain

μετανοῆτε: PASubj, 2pl, μετανοέω, 1) to change one's mind, i.e. to repent 

ἀπολεῖσθε: FMI, 2p, ἀπόλλυμι, 1) to destroy  1a) to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin 

1. One issue facing the translator is whether the λέγω points backward or forward. Is it, answering the previous supposition with “No, I say!” Or, with Jesus having said ‘No,” is the λέγω introducing what Jesus adds: “No. I say unless you ...” 

2. Another issue facing the translator is what to do with the side-by-side conjunctions ἀλλ' and ἐὰν. ἀλλ' is a form of ἄλλα (dropping the vowel because it is joined with a word that begins with a vowel) and typically means ‘but,’ indicating a strong contrast. ἐὰν often means ‘if’ but here it is sidled with the negative particle μὴ, so ‘unless’ or ‘except.’  

3. The word ἀπόλλυμι often means ‘to destroy,’ but here it is in the middle voice, so it is not an active act of destroying as much as a reflexive act of perishing. 

4. I see the phrase πάντες ὁμοίως “all likewise” as emphatic, since it is wedged in between two verbs using the 2^ndperson plural voice which already mean ‘you all’. To me, it is emphatic in opposing the contrast between ‘those Galileans’ and ‘all Galileans’ in the supposition.

5. And now the troubling question: Is Jesus saying, “Yes, the Galilean were destroyed because they were sinners and you all will be too”? If so, the “No!” or “No, I say!” seems to mean “Those particular Galileans were not especially sinners, but yes to the idea that they were slaughtered because they were sinners like the rest of you and so repent.” That would be some difficult theology and seems unlike the God I typically know through Jesus. 

6. I wonder, though, if by repent Jesus is speaking in terms much larger than the personalized experience I have been taught to hear with that term. Maybe it means that they all, all, the whole of the people, need to change their strategy of cooperating with the Empire in hopes that they will get justice. Maybe they have been following a policy of appeasement in hopes of keeping the peace. And maybe that's just foolish when the Empire only know a peace that is established through violence. Or maybe those Galileans represented the Jewish Revolt of 66-70 CE, an attempt to overcome violence with violence, which Jesus did not support. My point is, I don't think the typical 20th century + idea of repentance as a personal inward spiritual experience fits this conversation. 

7. Just a note: I have developed the habit when preaching that, every time I say the word repent, I gesture and add the appositional phrase, “change the way you think about everything,” just to keep it from being diminished into feeling sorry about some things. 

 ⁴ ἢ ἐκεῖνοι οἱ δεκαοκτὼ ἐφ 'οὓς ἔπεσεν ὁπύργος ἐν τῷ Σιλωὰμ καὶ ἀπέκτεινεν αὐτούς, δοκεῖτε ὅτι αὐτοὶ ὀφειλέται ἐγένοντο παρὰ πάντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Ἰερουσαλήμ;

Or those ten on whom fell the tower in Siloam and killed them, are you supposing ‘They among all people living in Jerusalem became debtors’?  

ἔπεσεν: AAI, 3s, πίπτω, 1) to descend from a higher place to a lower  1a) to fall (either from or upon) 

ἀπέκτεινεν: AAI 3s, ἀποκτείνω, 1) to kill in any way whatever  1a) to destroy, to allow to perish 

δοκεῖτε: PAI 2pl, δοκέω, 1) to be of opinion, think, suppose 

ἐγένοντο: AMI, 3pl, γίνομαι

κατοικοῦντας: PAPart amp, κατοικέω to live

1. Like v.2, I am translating the ὅτι as the beginning of what they are supposing. 

2. Like v.2, the contrast is between ‘they’ (the ten) and ‘all’ people living in Jerusalem in the supposition. 

3. The word ὀφειλέται is the same as in Matthew's version of the Lord's Prayer, "as we forgive our debtors." It seems to include but not be exclusive to monetary debt and seems interchangeable with sin. Perhaps by holding those two terms together we can get a better sense of both. 

⁵ οὐχί, λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀλλ' ἐὰν μὴ μετανοῆτε πάντες ὡσ αύτως ἀπολεῖσθε.

No, I say to you, but unless you repent all of you will in like manner perish. 

λέγω: PAI 1s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak  1a) affirm over, maintain

μετανοῆτε: PASubj, 2pl, μετανοέω, 1) to change one's mind, i.e. to repent 

ἀπολεῖσθε: FMI, 2p, ἀπόλλυμι, 1) to destroy  1a) to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin 

1. This verse is exactly the same as v.3, with one exception. 

2. The exception is that this verse has the word ὡσαύτως instead of ὁμοίως. Many translations reflect no difference. The NRSV has ‘as’ and ‘just as’ in vv. 3 and 5. I changed ‘likewise’ to ‘in like manner’ just to show that there is a difference. The question arises whether Luke changes this word in order to indicate that this similarity is the point of the two verses. While the common supposition points to the difference between the sufferers and others, this retort speaks to the solidarity of either all Galileans or all of those living in Jerusalem. Whatever we might say about ‘them’ is likewise true about ‘us.’ 

 ⁶ Ἔλεγεν δὲ ταύτην τὴν παραβολήν: Συκῆν εἶχέν τις πεφυτευμένην ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἦλθενζητῶν καρπὸνἐν αὐτῇ καὶ οὐχ εὗρεν.

Yet he was saying this parable: “Someone had a fig tree having been planted in his vineyard, and he came while seeking fruit on it and found none.  

Ἔλεγεν: IAI 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak  1a) affirm over, maintain 

εἶχέν: IAI 3s, ἔχω, 1) to have, i.e. to hold  

πεφυτευμένην: APPart, AFS, φυτεύω, 1) to plant  

ἦλθεν: AAI 3s, ἔρχομαι, 1) to come  1a) of persons

ζητῶν: PAPart nsm, ζητέω, 1) to seek in order to find  1a) to seek a thing

εὗρεν: AAI 3s, εὑρίσκω, 1) to come upon 1a) after searching, to find a thing sought 

1. Like v.1, this verse begins with the conjunction δὲ. It can be a continuation or contrast word, depending on the feel of the context. For example, in vv.7, I think it is just a way of moving the story along, so I translate it ‘then.’ But here the δὲ is the connective tissue between the conversation of vv.1-5 and the parable of vv.6-9. Is it “and,” meaning that the parable simply continues the theme of the conversation? Is it ‘but,’ meaning that the parable speaks against the notions at play in the conversation? Is it ‘then,’ meaning that this is the next sequence but more neutral regarding the connection? (Most of the translations I have at hand go with either ‘then’ or ‘and.’ Nobody is going with ‘but.’) 

2. A fig tree in a vineyard. Are they compatible plantings so this is common or is this an oddity? The ancient farming manuals provide one answer.  It seems to have been a common practice to plant fig trees in vineyards to aid in the trellising of vines. In fact Pliny recommends that trees be used for growing grape vines since "high class wines can only be produced from vines on trees " Pliny specifically mentions the fig tree as a preferred tree for use in trellising "The choicer wines," he says, "are made from the grapes at the top of the trees." (Pliny, Natural History pp.136-139) 

3. On the other hand, as Cynthia Jarvis points out in the comments, this site argues that nobody would plant fig trees in a vineyard because of the amount of groundwater fig trees consume. 

4. And for those who want to know more, here is a great (subtitled) video and essay about fig trees in Tunisia and throughout the Mediterranean, which says this: "Back in 2006, in the ruins of a prehistoric village in the Jordan River Valley, a team of archeobotanists found proof that figs had been cultivated 11,400 years ago—long before the domestication of wheat, barley or legumes. As they outlined in the journal Science, this discovery could make the fruit trees the oldest-known agricultural crop." This essay also repeatedly argues that figs are quite tolerant of drought. 

5. So, now we have different ways of viewing the fig tree in a vineyard. It either belongs there (#2 above) or is problematic there (#3 above) or may be valued in itself, which would be why someone would want it planted there (#4 above). The dual-biome of vines and figs may shape the way we will look at the landowner, the gardener, the suggested reprieve, and bring us back to the δὲ, the but/and/then connective tissue between the horrors of vv.1-5 and this story. I will return to this connection below. 

 ⁷ εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς τὸν ἀμπελουργόν, Ἰδοὺ τρία ἔτη ἀφ 'οὗ ἔρχομαι ζητῶν καρπὸν ἐντῇ συκῇ ταύτῃ καὶ οὐχ εὑρίσκω. ἔκκοψον [οὖν] αὐτήν: ἱνατί καὶ τὴν γῆν καταργεῖ;

Then he said to the viticulturist, ‘Behold three years I enter while seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none.’  [Therefore] cut it down; why is it also wasting the ground?’ 

εἶπεν: AAI 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak  1a) affirm over, maintain 

 Ἰδοὺ: AMImpv ὁράω, behold! calling attention to what may be seen, heard, or apprehended in any way.

ἔρχομαι: PMI 1s, ἔρχομαι, 1) to come  1a) of persons

ζητῶν: PAPart nsm, ζητέω, 1) to seek in order to find

εὑρίσκω: PAI 1s, εὑρίσκω, 1) to come upon 1a) after searching, to find a thing sought 

ἔκκοψον: AAImpv 2s, ἐκκόπτω, 1) to cut out, cut off  1a) of a tree  

καταργεῖ: PAI 3s, καταργέω, 1) to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative 1a) to cause a person or thing to have no further efficiency 1b) to deprive of force, influence, power 

1. I’m using a bit of license with ‘wasting,’ but the point seems to be – because of the καὶ (also) – that it is not just the tree itself that is affected but the ground that is being idled by the barren tree.

2. I'm going with viticulturist for ἀμπελουργόν because I like to say viticulturist and because  ἀμπελ/ουργόν literally means worker of a vineyard. 

 ⁸ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς λέγει αὐτῷ, Κύριε, ἄφες αὐτὴν καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ἔτος,  ἕως ὅτου σκάψω περὶ αὐτὴν καὶ βάλω κόπρια:

But having answered he says to him, ‘Lord, allow it this year also, until when I may dig around it and may throw manure; 

ἀποκριθεὶς: AAPart, nms, ἀποκρίνομαι, 1) to give an answer to a question proposed, to answer 

λέγει: PAI 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak  1a) affirm over, maintain 

ἄφες:AAImp, 2s, ἀφίημι, 1) to send away  … to permit, allow, not to hinder

σκάψω: AASubj 1s, σκάπτω, 1) to dig

βάλω: AASubj 1s, βάλλω, 1) to throw or let go of a thing 1a) to scatter, to throw, cast 

1. In this verse, the δὲ seems to introduce contrast – the viticulturist offers a counter-proposal to the owner’s solution of cutting the tree down. 

 ⁹ κἂν μὲν ποιήσῃ καρπὸν εἰς τὸ μέλλον εἰ δὲ μή γε, ἐκκόψεις αὐτήν.

then it may bear fruit per the plan but and if not, you will cut it down. 

ποιήσῃ: AASubj, 3s, ποιέω, 1) to make  1a) with the names of things made, to produce, 

μέλλον: PAPart, ASN, μέλλω, 1) to be about  1a) to be on the point of doing or suffering something  1b) to intend, have in mind, think to 

ἐκκόψεις: FAI 2s, ἐκκόπτω, 1) to cut out, cut off  1a) of a tree  2) metaph. to cut off occasion

1. This is an atrocious verse for translating. The word κἂν is a merged word from καὶ and ἐάν, then it is paired with μὲν, which is sometimes translated and sometimes not translated but is a placeholder for another word later, like εἰ. On top of that is the participial phrase εἰς τὸ μέλλον, which, literally, might be ‘into the intending’ or something like that. I am using the phrase “per the plan” to represent this phrase. 

2. The point seems clear enough, regardless of the specific word-by-word translations. The viticulturist is asking for one more year of care and work. If the fig tree begins producing – mission accomplished! If not, bring out the axe! 

Part I: Theodicy or Hypocrisy? 

A text like Luke 13:1-5 invariably prompts us to think that the large question of theodicy is being addressed. It speaks to tragedies, both humanly perpetrated and (apparently) accidental. It may even get our hopes up that this text will finally answer the perplexing issues that surround questions of theodicy. Will we finally find an answer to “Why do bad things happen to good people” in this text? My feeling is, no, we will not. 

What I see happening in the first 5 verses here is not that Jesus is taking on those big questions. I see Jesus addressing not theodicy but hypocrisy.“Do you suppose a causal relationship between morality and tragedy?” That is what I hear behind the suppositions that Jesus perceives among those who bring him the news of this tragedy. “You have more in common than different with those victims.” It puts the whole question of causality or blame on a new footing – who are we to place blame? 

So, I see this first part as a criticism of those who assume that they are different enough from victims to place blame on them for their victimhood. Jerry Falwell after 9/11 or Pat Robertson after hurricane Katrina – pointing fingers, naming names, calling out communities from whom they are different – come to mind as those who assume they can fathom out victims and place blame.

Part II: One More Chance

The meaning of the second part of this reading – verses 6-9 – seems relatively simple compared to the previous verses. The vintner asks for one more chance. It is not an endless stream of chances, but it is certainly more patient than the owner’s first inclination of, “That’s it. Cut it down.” All I can say is that when people are ready to punish me for various shortcomings – and there are plenty of possibilities out there – I hope someone among them has read this text and says, “Let’s give him one more chance.” I’ll try to do better. 

Parts I and II Together 

A great question, then, is what vv.1-5 and vv.6-9 mean when taken together. If the suppositions of vv.1-5 point to our tendency to cast blame, the theology behind those suppositions is a direct causal relationship where God says, “That’s it. Death for you!” Boom! Pilate and falling towers. Then we get a parable that suggests the connection between producing fruit and being cut down is not so direct. There is room for ‘one more chance.’ 

I am often reluctant to assume that the landowners or vineyard owners of Jesus’ parables are descriptive of God. In the other Lukan parable of a vineyard with an absentee owner (20:9ff), followed by "The stone the builders rejected has returned to become the chief cornerstone," it would seem that God is the landowner, the prophets are the sent ones who are killed, and Jesus is the son/stone that is rejected. At other times, I'm not so sure that we ought to jump to the conclusion that God is the king/landowner/master of parables. They are often rather severe folk and sometimes I’m inclined to think they are more a description of “this is how things seem to operate” to which God’s kingdom offers an alternative course. So, I’m not saying that this vineyard owner is God, thus making Jesus the viticulturist who has to talk God into being nice for once. To me, that is a very dangerous Marcionite way of looking at the God whose primary description in the Scriptures is “God’s steadfast love endures forever.”  

In the end, holding these two stories together offers some choices. 

1. It could be an alternative to the kind of quid pro quo justice of revenge that many people ascribe to either God or some kind of universal force. We might call it “karma” (don’t, please) when someone driving obnoxiously gets a flat tire, or think it is God’s doing (don’t, please) if a bad person meets a bad end. If we view the Galileans or the folks crushed by the tower as lacking of faithful piety, we might see their deaths as God's punishment. Jesus questions whether they were any more sinful than anyone else and suggests an alternative: A parable that invites digging, cultivating, dunging, and doing everything one can to give a fig tree a chance to bloom. It is a plan of action to assist the failing, not a theodicy wager that they get what’s coming to them. What if we viewed "repent" as the work of digging, cultivating, and dunging, rather than just feeling badly about things done and left undone in thought, word, and deed? 

2. Or, we could view the landowner as the Roman Empire: An absentee landowner, demanding the planting of a fig tree in a vineyard where it doesn't belong and where it won't grow under the normal watering process for a vineyard. Then, when it is not immediately fruitful, the rash, "cut it down" strikes me as a kind of "what have you done for me lately?" capitalist mentality that's ready to axe workers, programs, or plans that do not produce immediate value. The viticulturist, then, might be ... ? I have a feeling this is the direction Empire Studies would lead us, but I don't see how it ends. 

3. I wonder if the demanding "cut it down" might be the push of violent revolutionaries, who want to do just that to the Roman Empire, this ill-placed fig tree in their garden. (Think of the Jewish revolt of 66-70CE). The Empire has not brought true peace, but a Pax Romana that is built on violence that initially conquers then maintains itself through humiliation. It has not brought prosperity, but has essentially enslaved the entire region to its imperial plans. It needs to be cut down. Or, instead, one could respond differently, doing the hard work of cultivating true life. Is this working? 

I think I'm admitting that I am not clear on how to relate vv. 1-5 to vv. 6-9. 

By the way, isn’t “fruitless fig tree” one of the best insults in history?