Steven Carr

"There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answered and said to them, 'Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.'� Luke 13

'Unless you repent you will all likewise perish.'

Was there ever a bleaker , more twisted message in its lack of humanity and compassion to people struck by disaster?

Toto

I don't know. Is it bleaker and more twisted to tell people that they perished because they were cursed by g-d? because they failed to follow one of the 613 laws sufficiently compulsively? because their ancestors committed a sin? because they themselves sinned in a previous life?

3 of those 4 traditional explanations of bad luck are supported by the Bible AFAIK.

Social science research shows that people would rather believe that they suffered from bad luck because they did something wrong than confront the fact that sometimes bad stuff happens to good people on a completely random and unpredictable basis.

I know that Stephen Carr is just being provocative, and trying to show that Jesus was not the good guy portrayed in popular fiction. But part of what Jesus says here is actually fairly profound - that the victims of the disasters he names were no worse sinners than others.

Steven Carr

In a way , the idea that all are equally depraved sinners is a form of equality.......

Apart from that, the passage is a simple 'turn or burn' threat, with the implication that those people got no more than sinners deserve, and you ,Toto, can't expect any more than those people got, because you are as bad as them.

pharoah

I noticed this parable of Jesus immediately following the passage you used:

Now why didn't Jesus apply his own words when he encountered the fig tree? :devil3:

Steven Carr

The parable is about destroying those who do not listen to the message.

It fits in with the theme that disasters await those who do not obey God, simply because they are disobedient and deserve disaster.

CJD

You're a bit off, as you've rid the entire pericope of all things political. Jesus is, in effect, saying, "That unless you repent, that is, unless you quit going about trying to bring in the kingdom of god in the way you think it ought to be brought in (namely, through violence and sedition), you too will face the wrath of the magistrates."

The irony is that this Jesus was supposedly killed for precisely that, even though he is everywhere presented as 'bringing in the kingdom' in an entirely different way.

By the way, what's so 'natural' about this disaster?

CJD

Steven Carr

That is an interesting translation of the word 'repent'. Which lexicon did you use?


Where did this fantasia on the word repent come from in Luke 13?

What violent seditiious movements were there in 30 AD? I know that Wright puts many anachronisms in the mouth of Jesus by claiming that things like Luke 23:31 are warnings about the dangers of violence and sedition, but there is no need for you to be equally anachronistic.

What single shred of evidence do you have that these Galileans were any more violent and seditious than Jesus or John the Baptist the babies killed by Herod? (apart from the fact that they had been killed by Pilate, which is not evidence of violent sedition)

Perhaps the Galileans were just as violently seditious as the Samaritans that Pilate had killed (ie not at all)

If the Galileans killed by Pilate, had been violent political agitators , why did Jesus proclaim that they were not worse sinners than all the other Galileans?

Presumably Jesus also believed political agitators had towers fall on them.

How would giving up violent sedition stop a tower falling on you?

CJD

Ironically, you may be suffering from the anachronism by adopting most modern Western Christians' conception of the word repent (i.e., pray the 'sinner's prayer', give up your private sins and get religion, because 'God has a wonderful plan for your life'). I'd like to see your reasons for thinking as much. At least I have an outside and proximate source (outside the NT, that is). Consider the following:

Josephus, in his autobiography, writes of a time when he was sent as a young general to confront a rebellious captain of brigands (who had been treacherously plotting to turn against Josephus and his men). Upon taking this captain off to the side, and, knowing of his traitorous plot, Josephus writes of the event, "I was not a stranger to that treacherous design he had against me, nor was I ignorant by whom he was sent for; that, however, I would forgive him what he had done already, if he would repent of it, and be faithful to me hereafter."

What Josephus is asking here is for this rebel to give up his style of revolution and trust him and his way, or his agenda (i.e., he was definitely not asking the fellow to have a conversion experience and get religion). Keep in mind that Josephus himself was no lover of Rome, but he felt he did what he had to do (which was compromise, as all aristocrats are wont to do). The same went for this rebellious captain. Josephus wanted him to repent of his way, to give it up, and in so doing, follow Josephus and live.

Moreover, let's be careful not to suffer from the post-Enlightenment fixation on separating theology and politics, as if Jesus too would have thought these disasters befell for purely theological reasons as opposed to political ones as well.

Galileans were notorious for their anti-Roman sentiments. Judas the Galilean apparently developed the so-called "Fourth Philosophy" (which, if you don't already know, was comprised of Pharisaical thought plus: 1) objected to the payment of taxes; 2) objected to rule by anyone other than God (theocracy); 3) God would intervene if they took the initative; and 4) God would work through them to establish his kingdom on earth). It's not a stretch, Steven, to suggest that Galileans in the midst of insurrections were commonplace.

Presumably, since theology and politics were not disjunct in the first century as they are in the West (and indeed, as they are not in the third world), yes. Those upon whom the tragedies occurred were not greater sinners than the rest; unless Israel repents, so Jesus, 'we' too can expect to get bowled over by Rome or crushed by falling towers. You must keep the two together, despite your modernistic sensibilities: In the first century, to not follow God's way politically would have theological ramifications — that is, judgment.

CJD

a generally helpful postscript to whoever will listen: avoid filling lexicons with too much power until you know how to read greek in its socio-grammatical context.

Thomas II

There are two aspects to this passage:
1.Are sins the cause for natural disasters? The answer is a very clear "NO".
2.An invitation to improve the quality of our lives before the moment of death catch us by surprise...like it happen to those poor people in Siloam..."

pharoah

The notion that this was a political and not a religious warning is fascinating and even somewhat plausible, but I think that it's offbase. I think that the key here is the use of the word "sinners". Now would Jesus use this word to describe those who wanted to violently overthrow Roman rule? It's possible, but it's much more likely that he was using it in its normal sense of disobedience to God. Remember also that at least one of his disciples was a Zealot, a militant Jewish sect.