Original Meaning

IN LUKE 12:49–14:24, Jesus is calling on his audience to note the nature of the time—a time when God is making divisions among people, a time when people should be able to see what God is doing through Jesus, and a time when Israel had better respond before becoming nationally culpable for rejecting God’s messenger. That this generation of the nation is on shaky ground becomes clear in the warnings of 13:6–9, 31–35, and later in 19:41–44. The kingdom is approaching and the narrow door remains open, but failure to respond means that Israel will meet with a judgment that will leave her desolate. God’s people must also develop an attitude of service to others around them, especially those who are not as able to help themselves. After this section, Jesus’ attention will shift almost exclusively to his disciples, for Israel will have missed the warning he issues here.

Luke 12:49–59 has three subunits: the cause of division (vv. 49–53), the call to consider the signs of the times (vv. 54–56), and the call to settle one’s accounts (vv. 57–59).1 The sequence is important. Jesus’ ministry forces choices and divides families. In considering such choices, one should examine the evidence that indicates that God has indeed sent Jesus, just as one reads the skies for the weather. And one should remember that if anyone becomes indebted to God, then he or she will have to settle accounts, so the choice is an important one. Jesus is beginning his final appeal to the nation of Israel to repent. In 13:31–35 he warns what will happen if they fail to respond. As with all of Luke 12, the issue is responding to God and to the One he sent, the Son of Man.

Jesus begins noting that he has come “to bring fire on the earth” and wishes it were already kindled. Jesus’ “I have come” statements are designed to summarize his ministry. The image of fire can refer to judgment (3:9) or to the Spirit (3:16). The Old Testament image of fire describes the purifying message of the prophets (Jer. 5:14; 23:29). Jesus’ message reveals the judging and purging work that his ministry represents: to provide the way for people to make decisions about where they stand and to offer them the opportunity to be healed (5:31–32). But before he can exercise such judgment and authority, he must undergo his own baptism, so he is limited in what he can do until then. “Baptism” is a reference to his approaching death. As later texts make clear, Jesus will engage in a great cleansing act, where he will identify with the sins of humanity and provide a basis for both saving and condemning by his experiencing God’s judgment in their place (John 3:16–21; Rom. 5:12–6:6). In the judgment he experiences, he provides the opportunity for others to be spared.2

Jesus knows that he forces choices, so he does not bring peace “but division.” The rejection he will suffer is only a portion of the tension introduced by his presence. Families will be divided as some opt for him and others choose against him. Every combination possible gets mentioned: father and sons, mothers and daughters, in-laws against in-laws. The choices are real, and people will go different ways. No one should be surprised that in forcing choices, division of opinion will emerge.

But there is guidance for the decision. Jesus calls on the crowd to reflect on their skills of discernment. Living in Palestine, they can decipher the weather by checking the wind and the clouds. If clouds come from the west and the Mediterranean, they know rain is coming. If wind comes from the southwest (NIV “south”) off of the desert, they know it will be hot—so hot that the grass wilts (James 1:11; cf. Isa. 49:10). They can read and anticipate the weather just by looking around. Yet they are unable to discern the nature of current events that surround Jesus. They do not assess his miraculous work or his message of deliverance rightly. Word and deed are ignored. In calling them “hypocrites,” Jesus is trying to shock them into reflection, as if to say: “How can you miss all that is going on around you in my ministry?” Their poor judgment leaves them at great risk.

So Jesus calls on the people to reflect on “what is right,” to assess their condition appropriately (vv. 57–59). The example he uses comes from everyday life, from a legal dispute, where apparently the subject is debt to another. The magistrate is like a sheriff in charge of a debtor’s prison.3 As you head to the judge, it is better to settle and be reconciled than to let judgment occur. The court may find you guilty, and then you will be locked up in prison until the full debt is paid.

This illustration is often taken to refer to personal relationships, since that is how Matthew 5:25–26 uses the image. But in Luke’s context of warning, the remark makes more sense as a reference to a debt before God. Jesus is urging us to settle our accounts with God, or else the prospect of judgment remains. There will be no release until every last dime of the debt is paid. The background of the image is painful, since in debtor prisons inmates were beaten in order to encourage someone to step forward to make the payment.4 The central idea, however, is not that one can get out of hell, but that one will be held accountable for every sin one commits.

In a passage unique to Luke, the author turns his attention to issues related to the nation of Israel and its citizens (13:1–9). That the nation is in view is suggested by the image of the fruitless fig tree (vv. 6–9). This allusion does not mean that every Jew rejected Jesus, for many did respond to him, but it does argue that the bulk of the nation, especially her religious leaders, did so, thus leaving the nation vulnerable to God’s judgment (19:41–44; 20:9–19). These texts also show the importance of deciding that Jesus has been sent from God.

The first incident (vv. 1–5) examines the issue of judgment, especially as tied to tragic events. Jesus argues that judgment will come on all if they do not repent. The second incident involves a parable (vv. 6–9), which tells Israel that she has a short time to respond before facing a national judgment.

In the discussion of the two tragedies in verses 1–5, the question emerges whether a worse level of sin causes a person to suffer a special judgment, either in being the victim in a series of events or in being the victim of a natural catastrophe.5 The temple massacre of the Galileans whose blood Pilate mixed with Jewish sacrifices raised the question whether God was exercising a special act of judgment against them. The collapse of a tower at Siloam that killed eighteen was a natural catastrophe—one of those things that just happens. But here the question also becomes, “Did God judge them for excessive sin?”6 In both cases the question is the same: Is God giving back to people what they deserved?

Jesus responds by changing the import of the question. The reason such events are so tragic is that they expose our mortality. Death exists in a fallen world, and nothing exposes our mortality more than when death comes suddenly and unexpectedly, cutting short a life that had the potential to be much fuller. Jesus argues that what should be contemplated is not the cutting short of these particular lives, but the fact that life terminates. This raises an even more basic question, what comes after that? How does one prevent the end from being the ultimate end? Jesus has taken a question about mortality and made it a question about the possibility of eternal punishment, which Scripture later calls the “second death” (Rev. 20:11–15). So he urges the people to repent, without which all will perish—only in a death that is more than a mere loss of mortality. His point is that with death comes a decisive encounter with God, one that does deal with sin. Whether one is a little sinner or a big one, repentance now is the only way to survive that coming encounter.

Now some may question whether Jesus is really alluding to ultimate judgment and death, but it is suggested by four points. (1) The previous passage (12:57–59) has raised the issue of clearing accounts with God, which looks at repentance for forgiveness of sin. (2) The following passage (13:6–9) looks at the judgment of the nation and alludes to losing fundamental access to God’s blessing. (3) If Jesus is referring merely to physical death because of failure to repent, then he answers the question about the tragedies affirmatively and notes somewhat insignificantly that physical death is in the cards for his audience in the future. (4) To see physical death as Jesus’ point is decidedly misleading, since they will all die physically eventually anyway. So it seems Jesus’ point is to challenge the audience to think about deeper issues, not to give a roundabout answer to their question about these tragedies.

Jesus deflects the question about the degree of sin because it distracts from the real question, the presence of sin, no matter what its form. Often we compare sinners so that we may excuse ourselves as not being as bad as others. Jesus wants no such escape from responsibility here. So he centers his thoughts on the most visible question. That is why he cites no specifics about sin in this passage.

The call to repent is a fundamental theme in Luke (3:8; 5:31–32; 15:1–32; 18:9–14; 24:47). Jesus has in mind that change of direction that comes from a change of orientation after hearing God’s messenger. Before one repents, one is not concerned about being related rightly to God. With repentance comes a change of mind that effects a change of direction, since one’s orientation of life is directed in faith to God. That is why the Old Testament concept of repentance uses a term that describes “turning.”

This section of Luke alternates between individual exhortation (vv. 1–5) and national warning (vv. 6–9). The two are related, because the response of the individuals will determine what the nation’s response in this generation is like (e.g., 11:29–32, 50–51). The closing parable, therefore, discusses the nation, using a variation on a standard figure about Israel—a vineyard or a tree garden (cf. Ps. 80:9–19; Isa. 5:1–7). Jesus may be alluding specifically to Micah 7:1, where God looks for grapes and figs in the garden of the nation but cannot find any. The fig tree should have borne fruit by the third year, but it has failed. The owner has given plenty of opportunity for the tree to be productive and has exercised a lot of care into getting it to be fruitful.7 So the failure to yield fruit is both disappointing and costly. The owner therefore commands the fig tree be cut down, but the caretaker of the grounds asks him to relent and give the tree a little more time. If in a year the fig tree is not productive, then it can be cut down.

The image describes the unfruitful state of the nation of Israel, for reasons Luke has made clear in chapters 9–12, and indicates that the time for the nation to respond is limited. The parable also pictures God’s patience. He will give the nation a short time yet before exercising judgment. But the shortness of the time also highlights the importance of making a decision quickly before it is too late. The nation has failed by and large to respond. In other words, while some in Israel are responding, most are not. Luke seems to hold the Jewish leadership most responsible, though he is not beyond giving Rome some responsibility (Acts 4:24–27). The judgment came on Israel in A.D. 70 (Luke 21:5–7), but as Paul indicates in Romans 11:12, 14, 26–27, it will not be a permanent judgment, because God is gracious and will bring the broken branches back into the plant.

Bridging Contexts

BASIC SCRIPTURAL THEMES are present in this text: the reality that Jesus brings division, even in families; the call to see the evidence God leaves to show Jesus is God’s chosen one; and the call to make sure one’s spiritual debt to God is paid. One should draw on the opportunity Jesus provides to come into God’s family and receive forgiveness.

The decision to trust Jesus can still divide families. Particularly sensitive today are decisions by Jews to come to Jesus. According to messianic Jewish ministries, many Jewish children are ostracized from families and treated as if they no longer exist. Converts from Islam or from certain Asian faiths face a similar isolation. So Jesus’ ministry still purges and makes distinctions within humankind, but now in a wider variety of contexts. When this happens, the church needs to rally around those who have “lost family” because they have believed. God calls us to surround them with a new host of brothers and sisters (cf. 18:29–30).

Reading the signs of the times (12:54–56) might take on a different form today from Jesus’ day. We do not have the benefit of his miraculous ministry, so the evidence of God’s work through him is left in the testimony of Scripture, in the evidence of transformed lives, and in the ministry of the church at large. The very existence of the church, emerging from next to nothing and growing through twenty centuries, is a testimony to God’s work. In all corners of the earth Jesus is active, sometimes in places far distant from the original new community.

Yet the way into the church is no different now from what it was then. We all have a debt of sin before God that someone must pay (Rom. 3:9–31). Either Jesus does it in our stead by his sacrifice on the cross, or we will pay every last cent before God, resulting in a debt we can never totally extinguish. That is why Jesus warns so strongly about the need for repentance in 13:1–9.

The topic of 13:1–5 is a general one about the nature of mortality and the culpability of sin. Since we are all sinners, we all need to turn to God for forgiveness (Rom. 3:20–26). What really kills permanently is not death in this life but the “second death” that sin produces. So the call of Jesus to repent is timeless, whether the call is issued to a covenant nation like Israel or to individuals who need to enter into a relationship of grace and forgiveness with God.

Another important idea in this text is that we cannot always determine why some tragic twists of fate occur. It is cruel to assume that a personal tragedy has happened because of sin in someone’s life (see also John 9).

The parable of 13:6–9 is context specific. It refers to Israel as the fig tree. The interaction of judgment and the idea of a short time to decide is related to its national status. On reflection, however, the principle of the possibility of judgment for one who never repents can be applied individually, since that is the point of verses 1–5. We must beware not to let our condition before God slide unattended throughout our lives (cf. Rom. 1:18–32).

Finally, the parable raises the question about how displeased God is with lack of fruit in our lives. Though the judgment in view here is unique to Israel, God’s displeasure with any who ignore or waste the resources he provides is a principle that exhorts all of us to be fruitful. Those who know his grace and are secure in it should respond gratefully with a life of fruitfulness (Eph. 2:8–10; Titus 2:11–14). We have come to him with a heart that recognizes our need of his grace, and having now experienced his mercy, our story should be different from that of this unfruitful fig tree (Rom. 12:1–2).

Contemporary Significance

THE CONTEMPORARY PORTRAIT of Jesus is skewed. Our culture tends to see him as a man who did not engage in confrontation or talk about judgment.8 He came as the ultimate peacemaker, who sought peace at any cost. He never challenged anyone other than to call for love and tolerance. As a teacher of wisdom and a teller of parables, Jesus did not force people into hard choices; or if he did, it had nothing to do with his own person, only with the need for Israel to reform ethically. Scot McKnight, in criticizing the Jesus Seminar in their view of Jesus, notes the inadequate options modern studies offer: Jesus the sage, Jesus the religious genius, or Jesus the social revolutionary. They are all inadequate portraits of the one who comes to bring us to God. McKnight summarizes his view well:

While it is perhaps inappropriate to offer sweeping criticisms of scholars whose work I respect and from whom I have learned a great deal, I must say that the above treatments of Jesus are unfair in that each presentation limits the evidence of the Gospels to a handful of sayings or events and builds an entire picture of Jesus primarily from one strand of the Gospel tradition. Yes, Jesus was a wise sage and a deeply religious man, and his teachings were undoubtedly more socially revolutionary than many evangelicals imagine; each of these portraits says something truthful about Jesus. At a bare minimum, they need to be combined for a fuller presentation.

My fundamental disagreement with each of them is that such a Jesus would never have been crucified, would never have drawn the fire that he did, would never have commanded the following that he did, and would never have created a movement that still shakes the world. A Jesus who went around saying wise and witty things would not have been threatening enough to have been crucified during Passover when he was surrounded by hundreds who liked him. A Jesus who was a religious genius who helped people in their relationship with God and was kind, compassionate, and gentle would not have been crucified either. A social revolutionary would have been crucified (and this partly explains Jesus’ death, in my view), but it is doubtful that such a revolutionary would have given birth to a church that was hardly a movement of social revolution. And if in the process of surviving, this movement had to shave off the socially revolutionary bits of Jesus, it is amazing that they decided to connect themselves, even root themselves, into a person who was a social revolutionary at heart. No, these pictures of Jesus will not do.9

This section of Luke challenges the contemporary portrait of Jesus. Jesus sees himself here as a figure who brings division. He forces choices, not only about how life is lived, but also about how he fit into God’s plan. Simply put, Jesus is the way into a relationship with God. In a sense Jesus’ ministry confronted people, not harshly but directly, but by calling them to account before God. His call is not to bring peace at any price, but to sort through humanity in order to draw some to him, while others turn away. He was and is the Great Divider. His ministry burns consciences, and our reaction to him determines the nature of his judgment.

This text calls each reader to consider where he or she stands before God and to consider all the evidence God has left as indicators for that decision, namely, the activity of Jesus’ ministry as well as the ultimate sign anticipated by a text like this, the resurrection. The Jesus of popular culture does not force such choices, but we may not manipulate the biblical Jesus into our own image. The Gospels are clear that many reacted against him because he challenged them in a threatening way with his prophetic call.

Another application of this passage is that if one is in a debt before God (debt being a figure for sin; cf. 11:4), then settling that debt is of prime importance. It is important to clear the books with God. It is a wise thing to assess one’s debt correctly and have it paid it off before the case is closed.

Much of 12:49–59 raises the issue of judgment and accountability before God. Yet all too often we try to package Jesus for our culture today as if sin were a minor topic on his agenda. This is not only the work of skeptical scholars like those noted above, it is also found in the way we preach Jesus in evangelism. For all the value of seeker-sensitive approaches, if as a result of trying to market Jesus churches soften the message at this point, then they distort the gospel and do not preach the Jesus who offers renewal of life. To remove accountability to God for sin is to remove one of the realities that make grace so powerful. In the effort to make the gospel palatable, we risk emasculating it of its most precious truth, that God has paid the debt for our failure and has washed it white as snow. Ironically in trying to exalt God’s love by ignoring sin, we remove the most powerful evidence of its presence.

Luke 13:1–5 underscores the importance of considering our status before God. We must repent and turn to him, or we will perish. In the context of this Gospel, such turning involves responding to Jesus and his teaching (6:47–49). Repentance is not an emotion or a mere mental assent to a proposition. It is a reorientation to a new life. To repent is not merely to regret things we have done or to apologize for them or to recognize a wrong has been committed. To repent is to agree that a change of direction is required, and then to respond accordingly. That is why John the Baptist speaks of producing the fruit of repentance (3:8). That is also why Paul could speak of repentance and the good works they produce in the same breath (Acts 26:20). Those who repent of their sin receive the gift of life.

Luke 13:6–9 shows that God is patient, but there does come a time when it is too late to repent. Those who anticipate a kind of deathbed repentance so they can “enjoy” life until the end usually do not care to repent when the end comes. Those who think the old wine is good do not try new wine. To repent means seeing that life lived outside of God and Christ is not life as God meant it. We must respond to God before it is too late or before we become accustomed to sinful ways.

This message has an implication. Often in sharing the gospel we give ourselves a sense that there is much time for people to decide. In a sense that can be true, for God is patient and does delay his judgment. But in a sense it can lull us to sleep. As we share Jesus, we can get complacent. Although ultimately the Spirit causes people to respond to Jesus, if we take a laid-back attitude, we will not be as sensitive to opportunities to share as we could be. Note how the caretaker kept trying to fertilize the fig tree. We too should try to keep feeding those who need to hear the gospel with the seed of truth.