§32 The Demand for Repentance (Luke 13:1–9)
This section contains materials that teach the urgency of repentance: the death of some Galileans during a time of sacrifice (vv. 1–3); the death of some upon whom a tower collapsed (vv. 4–5); and the Parable of the Barren Fig Tree (vv. 6–9). The incidents reported here, in which reference is made to the murder of some Jews from Galilee and the death of 18 people in Siloam, is unique to Luke. Neither of the episodes is mentioned in secular histories (though some scholars point to two or three inexact parallels to the incident of the murdered Galileans; see Marshall, p. 553). Concerning theme, Evans (p. 46) points to a parallel with Deut. 13:12–18, where the emphasis on turning to the Lord in order to live is quite similar to the Lucan passage under consideration (cf. the similar expression, “all who live in that town,” Deut. 13:15, with “all the others living in Jerusalem,” Luke 13:4).
13:1–5 / Some people who presumably have just arrived from Jerusalem told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. For some unknown reason Pilate had slain a few Galileans while they were offering their sacrifices. Since laymen were allowed to perform their own Passover sacrifices, this may very well have been the occasion. The report that Pilate had “mingled their blood with their sacrifices” is not literally the case, for such an action would have incited the populace to a possible insurrection; but it is probably meant in a proverbial sense, that is, not only was the blood of the sacrificial animals shed, but the blood of the Galileans was as well. Passover time was often a time of political unrest, a time when Jewish patriotic feelings ran high and Roman concerns were justifiably aroused. (Jesus was crucified under precisely such circumstances.) These Galileans (how many is unknown) were seemingly caught up in some sort of plot or activity deemed treasonable by Pilate. Whatever the circumstances, the death of these unfortunate pilgrims evokes the question that Jesus asks in v. 2, a question that reflects the Pharisaic belief that misfortune was often brought on by God in retaliation for sin (see John 9:1–2). Did their murder prove that they were worse sinners than all the other Galileans? Their death proved no such thing. But their death should remind all who hear of it of the need to repent. Similar is the case of the eighteen people who died when the tower of Siloam fell on them (see note below). Their accidental death most certainly does not indicate that they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem. From this episode Jesus draws the same lesson: Unless you repent, you too will all perish.
13:6–9 / The Parable of the Fig Tree illustrates that people will not always have an opportunity to repent and turn over a new leaf. Just as the reports concerning those who died (vv. 1–5) should awaken one to the realization of the nearness of judgment, so the present parable underscores that judgment cannot be put off forever.
13:1 / Various historical incidents that have been proposed as underlying the murder of the Galileans include: (1) the riot that ensued Pilate’s posting of imperial ensigns in A.D. 26 (Pilate’s first year in office); and (2) riots resulting from the work on an aqueduct; however, as Marshall (p. 553) has noted, “this incident involved the murder of Judaeans [not Galileans] with cudgels outside the Temple” and had nothing to do with sacrifices; and (3) the murder of some Samaritans. But since this incident involved Samaritans, not Galileans, and occurred in A.D. 36 (Pilate’s last year in office), it is scarcely the event alluded to in Luke. It was probably a less noteworthy incident. We may ask why the report was delivered to Jesus. Although by no means certain, it is possible that the messengers thought the news worthy of Jesus’ attention because of his fame and following. Had many regarded him as a or the Messiah in the popular sense they might have hoped that Jesus’ movement would gain additional support by spreading the news of this fresh outrage. According to his contemporaries Philo (Embassy to Gaius 38) and Josephus (Antiquities 18.55–62; War 2.169–174), Pontius Pilate was a cruel and violent man. The Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15.44; ca. A.D. 115) mentions Pilate in connection with the crucifixion of Jesus.
13:4 / Siloam was the name of the reservoir which supplied Jerusalem (Isa. 8:6, where it is spelled “Shiloah”; John 9:7). The aqueduct referred to in the preceding note could have had something to do with this accident (see Josephus, Antiquities 18.60). Otherwise, we have no record of any such accident (nor should we really expect to have any, for the episode would scarcely have been deemed historically significant). Marshall (p. 554) notes that there is a rabbinic statement that no building “ever collapsed in Jerusalem” (the reference is found in Aboth de Rabbi Nathan 35). This statement is not conclusive (nor is it likely accurate). The tower may have been no more than some temporary scaffolding.
13:6 / Marshall (p. 555) states that “there is nothing strange about a fig-tree being planted … in a vineyard … since fruit trees of all kinds were regularly planted in vineyards.” It is not certain whether Jesus meant the fig tree to represent Israel (though see Jer. 8:13; Mic. 7:1; Tiede, p. 247), but it is probable that Luke’s contemporaries would have understood it this way.
13:7 / three years: Evans (p. 46) has pointed to Deut. 14:28–29, where every third year a special tithe of produce (fruit) has to be brought out for widows and orphans. If Luke has seen this connection he may have wished the parable to be understood as suggesting that on the third year there is to be special evidence of fruitfulness (which for Luke is seen chiefly in terms of sharing wealth with the poor, widows, orphans). Disgusted, the owner of the vineyard wants to cut it down, but his question (Why should it use up the soil?) may hint at the replacement of this fruitless tree.
13:8 / one more year: The implication is that judgment will be postponed, but only for a brief period. When the parable was originally told, the man who pleaded for the tree probably represented no one, but it is possible that later he came to be understood as symbolizing Jesus in his intercessory role (see Marshall, p. 556).
Lachs (p. 297) cites the Syriac version of the Story of Ahikar as a possible parallel to the Parable of the Barren Fig Tree: “My son, thou hast been to me like that palm tree that stood by a river, and cast all its fruit into the river, and when its lord came to cut it down, it said to him, ‘Let me alone this year, and I will bring thee forth carobs.’ And its lord said unto it, ‘Thou has not been industrious in what is thine own, and how wilt thou be industrious in what is not thine own’ ” (35).