The Very Right of God: the Meaning of Luke 13:1-9, and Criticism(S) of John Piper’S View of the Role of God in Tragedy:1 a Narrative Analysis Eric C

Home , Luke 13

The Very Right of God: The Meaning of Luke 13:1-9, and Criticism(s) of John Piper’s View of the Role of God in Tragedy:1 A Narrative Analysis Eric C. Redmond

On August 1, 2007, the I-35 Mississippi River Bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota collapsed during the evening rush hour, killing 13 people and injuring 145. Responding that same evening to the tragedy, John Piper utilizes Luke 13:1-5 in his conversation about God's decree of the fall of the I-35 Bridge in Minneapolis:

Tonight for our family devotions our appointed reading was Luke 13:1-9. It was not my choice. This is surely no coincidence. O that all of the Twin Cities, in shock at this major calamity, would hear what Jesus has to say about it from Luke 13:1-5. People came to Jesus with heart-wrenching news about the slaughter of worshipers by Pilate… Jesus implies that those who brought him this news thought he would say that those who died, deserved to die, and that those who didn’t die did not deserve to die. That is not what he said. He said, everyone deserves to die. And if you and I don’t repent, we too will perish. This is a stunning response. It only makes sense from a view of reality that is radically oriented on God… The meaning of the collapse of this bridge is that John Piper is a sinner and should repent or forfeit his life forever. That means I should turn from the silly preoccupations of my life and focus my mind’s attention and my heart’s affection on God and embrace Jesus Christ as my only hope for the forgiveness of my sins and for the hope of eternal life. That is God’s message in the collapse of this bridge. That is his most merciful message: there is still time to turn from sin and unbelief and destruction for those of us who live. If we could see the eternal calamity from which he is offering escape we would hear this as the most precious message in the world.2

Speaking to his 11-year old daughter that same evening, Piper said,

1 It is with great joy that I contribute this paper to my friend and professor, Elliott E. Johnson, a faithful servant of the Lord Jesus. I am indebted to his kindness to me as a student, colleague at Pantego Bible Church, Ft. Worth, TX, and mentor. It is his gracious teaching, wise guidance, and loyal friendship that have stroked my questions about interpreting Biblical narratives and kindled them into a love for Biblical hermeneutics and humble exposition of the scriptures. My congregations, and Bible college and seminary students have benefitted tremendously from his knowledge and kindness. He is worthy of the honor of the essays in this volume, to the glory of God. 2 John Piper, “Putting My Daughter to Bed Two Hours After the Bridge Collapsed,” n.p. [cited 1 August, 2007]. Online: http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/putting-my-daughter-to- bed-two-hours-after-the-bridge-collapsed. 2

[You] and I know that God did not do anything wrong. God always does what is wise. And you and I know that God could have held up that bridge with one hand…Which means that God had a purpose for not holding up that bridge, knowing all that would happen, and he is infinitely wise in all that he wills.3

Piper previously referenced Luke 13:1-5 in a 1998 sermon from the same passage4, and again references these verses when addressing the 1999 Earthquake in Turkey5, the fall of the

World Trade Center towers on 9/11,6 the Columbine tragedy (expanded into the article on the fall of the towers), the December 2004 Tsunami in the Indian Ocean,7 and the 2012 shooting in

Newtown, CT.8 As such, it has become a stock passage for Piper’s explanation of adversity in the fallen word.

Roger Olson challenged Piper's (and all Calvinists') form of determinism, although he does not directly address Piper's reading of Luke 13. After the collapse of the bridge, alluding to

Piper’s reply, Olsen wrote,

So where is God when seemingly pointless calamity strikes… A well- known Christian author and speaker pastors a church within a mile of the collapsed bridge. To him and his followers, God foreordained, planned and indirectly (if not directly) caused the event… The pastor and the band are Christian determinists. Both happen to adhere to a form of Protestant theology called Calvinism…. This theology is sweeping up thousands of impressionable young

3 ibid. 4 John Piper, “Unless You Repent You Will All Likewise Perish,” n.p. [cited 5 June 1988]. Online: http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/unless-you-repent-you-will-all-likewise- perish. 5 John Piper, “Whence and Why the Earthquake in Turkey?” n.p. [cited 18 August 1999]. Online: http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/whence-and-why-the-earthquake-in-turkey. 6 John Piper, “How Shall We Minister to People after the World Trade Tower Terrorism of September 11, 2001? 21 Ways to Comfort Those Who Are Suffering,” n.p. [cited 12 September 2001]. Online: http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-shall-we-minister-to-people- after-the-world-trade-tower-terrorism-of-september-11-2001. 7 John Piper, “Tsunami and Repentance,” n.p. [cited 5 January 2005]. Online: http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/tsunami-and-repentance. 8 John Piper, “A Lesson for All from Newtown,” n.p. [cited 15 December 2012]. Online: http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/a-lesson-for-all-from-newtown. 3

Christians. It provides a seemingly simple answer to the problem of evil. Even what we call evil is planned and rendered certain by God because it is necessary for a greater good.9

Olsen, in contrast, prefers a view of the collapse “that relieves God of responsibility for sin and evil and disaster and calamity.”10

Greg Boyd does directly challenge Piper's reading of Luke 13 and the implications Piper draws for Theology Proper and soteriology. He believes Piper’s interpretation of Luke 13:1-5 wrongly “assumes that God was somehow involved in Pilate’s massacre and the falling tower of

Siloam.” Boyd asks, “But where in the text is there any suggestion Jesus assumed God had anything to do with either of these catastrophes?” He too questions the deterministic interpretation of this passage, inquiring,

Why is God still in the business of physically punishing people for their sins by sending catastrophes..? Certainly God has the right to punish people by taking back the life he gives when he sees fit (e.g. Acts 5:9-10). But in the light of Calvary – and the entire ministry of Jesus – why should we think that this is his post-Christ ordinary mode of operation?11

“Rather than trying to see the vindictive hand of God behind catastrophes,” for Boyd, “it's far more biblical, and far more rational, to simply say that in a fallen, oppressed world, bridges sometimes collapse…That, after all, was what Jesus was getting at in Luke 13:1-5.”12

9 Roger Olsen, "Calvinist View of Bridge Collapse Distorts God's Character,” The Baylor Lariat (August 28, 2007): n.p. The original link to the article no longer is available. In a personal correspondence to the staff of the newspaper, they also note that they have lost the digital archive of the issue. 10 ibid. 11 Greg Boyd, “Why the 35W Bridge Collapsed,” n.p. [cited 9 August 2007]. Online: http://gregboyd.blogspot.com/2007/08/why-35w-bridge-collapsed.html. 12 ibid. 4

Ben Witherington also disagrees with Piper's view of God's role in tragedy and suffering, although, like Olson, he does not directly question Piper's reading of Luke 13.13

I am not writing to defend God or John Piper. I am writing, instead, to help us with reading texts. I am concerned that the line of reasoning offered by Olson, Boyd, and

Witherington does not seem to be reflective of the meaning of the text in question.

NARRATIVE ANALYSIS OF LUKE 13:1-3

The meaning of Luke 13:1-5 is communicated by the conventions of narrative, chief of which is Plot. Plot is the intentional sequencing of the movement of a story from beginning to middle to end as the story revolves around a goal, a conflict or series of conflicts, and the resolution thereof. The Plot Goal of Luke 13:1-5 may be stated as follows:14

The Plot Goal of Luke 13:1-5 is for the people to understand Jesus' view of the Galilean deaths at the hand of Pilate.

One discerns this Plot Goal as the reader recognizes that the people tell Jesus about the death of the Galileans in such a manner that he responds to them. The people are not passing information; they are asking for a judgment of their worldview of the tragedy. Even if they were not implying a question by telling Jesus about the incident in which Pilate mingled the Galileans' blood with their sacrifices, they received an answer.15

Jesus reveals to those listening that they should not think catastrophe came to these

Galileans because of a judgment proportional to their sinfulness in comparison to others’ (i.e.,

13 Ben Whiterington, “Religion in the News—God Get’s Sued!!” n.p. [cited 18 September 2007]. Online: http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/09/religion-in-news-god- gets-sued.html.

14 A Plot Goal is the intended (expected) literary outcome of the story if it continues on its original literary trajectory without interruption. 15 There is not an extrabiblical account of either of the historical incidents mentioned in 13:1-5. The Scriptures bear the only historical record of the events. 5 harsher judgment for worse sinners).16 When Jesus answers in disapproval of their beliefs, he introduces into the story to a conflict, for the expectation of the characters is approval of their worldview concerning the tragedy. This first Plot Conflict could be stated in this manner:17

A Plot Conflict of Luke 13:1-5 is the assumption of some that the humiliated Galileans were more sinful than others because of the manner in which they suffered.18

Thus, in speaking to the assumptions of the people, Jesus provides the correct understanding of the Galilean tragedy. That is, he counters the people's thoughts about the sinfulness of the

Galileans.

Jesus then, in contrast to the people's concerns, calls the people to repent or similarly perish. This is how Jesus resolves the conflict, so that the story provides a resolution. This first

Plot Resolution may be stated this way:19

One part of the Plot Resolution in Luke 13:1-5 is that Jesus 1) corrects the people's view of the sinfulness of the Galileans, and 2) calls the people to repent or perish similarly.

NARRATIVE ANALYSIS OF LUKE 13:4-5

Jesus utilizes this teaching opportunity to speak of a second tragic incident: the death of eighteen Jerusalem residents in the falling of the Tower of Siloam.20 The resemblance of

16 There is no reason to suppose with Garland “that these victims were not innocents caught up in some random sweep by Pilate but that this strong-arm tactic was an overreaction against those perceived to be agitators of some stripe” (David E. Garland, Luke [ZECNT 3: Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2011], 537). Jesus notes that the victims were not “worse” than others.

17 Plot Conflict(s) are the hurdles or obstacles to the characters that keep a story from immediately reaching its (expected) intended literary outcome. 18 I am using "humiliated" in the sense of "dead,” recognizing that the acts of death and desecration were tied together. 19 A Plot Resolution is the outcome(s) of a story that acts as the resolution to the Conflict(s) so that the Goal may be achieved. 20 Some writers suspect that the issue being raised by the people in 13:1-3 is one of the tyrannical power of Rome. However, the inclusion of discussion about the Jerusalemites and a 6 discussion allows one to discern a Plot Conflict and a Plot Resolution similar to that in Luke

13:1-3:

A second Plot Conflict in Luke 13:1-5 is the assumption that the Jerusalemites killed in the falling of the Tower of Siloam were more sinful than other people because of the manner in which they suffered.21

A second Plot Resolution in Luke 13:1-5 is that Jesus 1) corrects the people's view of the sinfulness of those on whom the Tower fell, and 2) calls the people to repent or perish similarly.

If we end our analysis here, we have only examined the structure of what has been communicated, or the "how" of the passage. But we are seeking the meaning of what has been communicated, or the "what" of the passage. In order to complete this task, one must analyze the parable in Luke 13:6-9.

PARABLE ANALYSIS OF LUKE 13:6-9

Parable, as a subset of narrative genre, requires a similar sort of analysis as historical narrative. However, a parable also requires a correlation to the historical world of the narrative passage in which a parable is found.22

tower makes clear to the hearer that the issue is not one of Roman rule. On this, Carson writes, "The point [Jesus] was making might well have been lost in the political sensitivities of this tragedy, so Jesus promptly refers to another disaster, this one stripped of Galileans, Pilate, the temple, sacrifices, and mingled blood," (D. A. Carson, For the Love For God: A Daily Companion for Discovering the Riches of God's Word [Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1998], n.p.; the reference is to the reading on February 27).

21 Jesus switches from "sinners" (ἁµαρτωλοὶ) to "debtors" (ὀφειλέται) without changing the sense of the reason for judgment, (i.e., "do you think they missed the mark before God more than others," and "do you think they are in greater debt before God than others"). In both 13:2 and 13:4, the concern is about the perception of being judged because of a greater level of unrighteousness before God being the reason the people died so tragically. 22 Most parables do not stand alone as isolated pericopes. Rather, parables generally are introduced by an event in the historical world of Christ, such as a question about forgiveness (Matt 18:21-35) or a request for a just division of one's inheritance (Luke 12:13-19). The significance of a parable cannot be understood fully if the parable is detached from its historical 7

In Luke 13, the Parable of the Barren Fig Tree is part of the discussion on the murder of the Galileans and the deaths of those in the Tower of Siloam incident.23 Using the tools for analyzing Plot given above, here is what I discern:

The Plot Goal of Luke 13:6-9 is for the man to find fruit on the fig tree he planted in the vineyard.

The man who planted the tree expected fruit from the tree. He planted the tree in the vineyard he owns with the hope that he would enjoy fruit from the tree. However, after three years there is no fruit on the tree. The conflict could be stated in this manner:

The Plot Conflict of Luke 13:6-9 is that there is no fruit on the tree for three years of seeking.

The story depicts the man as one who keeps coming to the tree over the course of a three-year period, hoping for fruit. The man does not see the fruit he desires for a relatively long period of time, considering the man expected fruit in each annual agricultural cycle.24

The parable develops an exchange between the man and his vinedresser. The man desires the immediate removal of the tree: "Cut it down!" He orders the tree's removal on the basis that as a three-year fruitless tree it is unfit to occupy space on the ground. One part of the Plot

Resolution, therefore, could be stated in this manner:

episode. Neither can the significance of the historical episode be fully appreciated if that episode is divorced from an adjoining parable. I draw this conclusion in contrast to the way in which many writers analyze parables.

23 For similar comments, see Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1990), 270-271. 24 Wallace suggests that the present active participle, ζητῶν, is an Adverbial Participle of Purpose (Telic), in which the verb is subordinate to the controlling verb ἔρχοµαι, indicating the purpose of the coming, (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996], 637). This, however, does not speak to the frequency of the coming, which is determined by the three-year proposal and the agricultural cycle.

Part of the Plot Resolution of Luke 13:6-9 is that the man tells the vinedresser to cut down the tree because it was unfit to occupy space as a fruitless tree for three years.

However, only a portion of the resolution is for the man to make a demand to the vinedresser. Jesus finishes the parable with the second part of the Resolution:

A second part of the Plot Resolution is that the vinedresser conditionally appeals for the life of the tree to be extended one year while he gives the tree special care for its fruitfulness.

The vinedresser makes an appeal for a merciful response to the fruitless tree. The vinedresser himself will redo the soil around the tree, adding natural fertilizer, in order to foster fruit bearing by the tree. However, if the tree is still found to be without fruit in the fourth year, the vineyard owner may then act to cut down the tree.

It is important to note that the vinedresser is making an appeal that does not have to be honored, for the owner of the vineyard is within his rights to cut down the tree planted in his vineyard. The tree has not done what a tree planted in a vineyard is expected to do.

MEANING OF THE PARABLE

Different from the means of the communication is the meaning of the structured communication. One must now ask, "What is the subject of this passage," or "what is this passage about," or "what is the idea that unites this entire passage?"25 For the parable, the subject is the owner's observation of the three-year fruitlessness of the fig tree. The man's observation is what brings about the order to cut the tree down, what initiates a comment about occupying ground, and what is the basis of the appeal by the vinedresser.26

25 Elliott E. Johnson, Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Academie/Zondervan, 1990), 83. 26 It might be tempting to see a veiled reference to national Israel in the use of the fig tree, and in the general address to the crowd in 13:1-5 (see Garland, Luke, 539). However, allegorical uses of a fig tree or figs to teach national judgment on Israel are consistently done in Scriptures 9

Following Johnson, one also must ask, "What comment, criticism, or judgment is the writer making about this passage," or "what [is] the author is saying about the subject,” or “what is the author saying about what he is talking about," or "what idea completes the subject so that the meaning of the passage is discerned?"27 For the parable, the complement of the subject is the manifestation of the prerogative of the owner to cut down the tree as useless immediately, or after another year of patience, based on appeal by the vinedresser to give special attention to facilitate fruit bearing.

By "manifestation of the prerogative," I am recognizing that the text portrays the owner as the one who can command the end of the life of the tree at will. The vinedresser's need to make an appeal for the extension of the life of the tree for an additional year, and the conditional nature of that appeal, together, display more fully the exclusive prerogative of the owner. If the owner were not within his rights, there would be no need for an appeal. The vinedresser simply could say, "Sir, you will not cut down this tree!" Instead, the tone of the response is, "But sir, can

without a veiled reference. "Judah," "Jerusalem," "Israel," or another reference to the people of God is written into the discussion of the fig tree or figs in each of the following passages: Jer 8:13 (cf. 7:30-34); 24:1-10; Hos 9:10; Joel 1:7 (cf. 1:6); Mic 7:1-2; Matt 21:28-32; 21:33-46). The fig tree is used in a sense different than national Israel in other passages of Scripture (Luke 6:44; 21:29-31; John 1:48-50; Jas 3:12; Rev 6:13). By separating the parable from the historical narrative, readers create a limited context for understanding the barren fig tree parable, which leads to appealing to other uses of fig tree imagery for the meaning of the imagery in Luke 13:1- 9. This seems to be the basis for some to draw the meaning of the fig tree from Israel's national history. However, this story is not concerned with Israel's history like the Parable of the Tenants, Matt 21:33-46. In that parable, there are historical markers given in the interpretation and the response by Israel's leaders, such as the rejection of the Stone by Israel, the transfer of the kingdom of God to another people, and the Pharisee's understanding that the parable was spoken about them—the very leaders of national Israel. Luke 13:6-9 lacks similar historical markers. Moreover, Jesus is speaking on matters of salvation and divine judgment, not on matters of corporate rejection. See the comments on footnote 19. 27 Johnson, Expository, 84-85. 10 the tree have just one more chance, please? If you are not happy after the next year, do as you intended.”28

MESSAGE OF THE EXCHANGE ABOUT THE GALILEANS

In Luke 13:1-5, the writer is talking about the people's assumptions about the magnitude of the sinfulness of the Galileans and Jews (Jerusalem residents) who experienced catastrophic suffering. By "catastrophic suffering," I am referring to the horrendous nature of the suffering of the people: for the one, a great cultic desecration ending in slaughter; to the other, a very violent death under a falling tower. The conclusion the people draw about the two incidents is that those who died these deaths had a life of sin of greater magnitude than that of themselves and others.

In making such conclusions they are saying that God has caused the deaths of those who were killed tragically because he was judging their sinfulness.

Jesus, through his comments on their assumptions, corrects their understanding of the magnitude of the sinfulness of those who died.29 Further, he warns the people of their own need to repent from their sins or to perish similarly. One cannot yet determine if "likewise" is a comparison of kind (a violent death), degree (eternal wrath), or scope (a certain death).

Conclusions on this comparison await further analysis. Yet it is also important to note that Jesus does not correct their judgment of the one standing over the deaths of those who died: repentance before God is needed to avoid perishing.

28 The apodosis of the κὰν clause is implied, as the vinedresser breaks his thought. Yet “the conclusion in the face of fruit-bearing is clear: the tree will remain,” (Darrell Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53 (BECNT 3B; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 1996], 1210). 29 I am using "corrects" in a revelatory sense rather than an adjusting sense. That is, Jesus offers a correction. I recognize that people must choose to accept an opposing thought. However, Luke only demonstrates Jesus to be offering a correction. No comment is given on people's acceptance of Jesus' comments. The reader must assume that Jesus, by not meeting with any retort, and by being the Son of God, is correct in his view of the two incidents.

RELATING THE PARABLE TO THE REAL WORLD

How does the meaning of the parable relate to and inform the meaning of the narrative in the historical world? At minimum, three questions need to be addressed: 1) What issue(s) raises the parable? 2) What issues are similar inside and outside of the parable? 3) What issues are resolved in the parable?

1. What issue(s) raises the parable? The parable is initiated by the people's assumption of the

greater wickedness of those who perished tragically, by Jesus' correction of the people's

thinking on tragic deaths, and by his call for repentance. Therefore the parable is related to

these ideas and intends to speak on these topics.

2. What issues are similar inside and outside the parable? Three elements are juxtaposed

between the parable and the historical narratives.

a. Endings of Judgment. In the historical narrative, the people die violently. But the violent

deaths are related to the hand of the Almighty by the discussion of sin, repentance and

judgment.30 People will perish at the hand of the Judge of all the earth. In a similar way,

in the parable, the tree is about to be cut down by the owner because of fruitlessness.

b. Conclusions Assumed about the Entities Facing Death. In the parable, the owner

concludes that the tree is unfit to occupy space. That is, the tree is worthless. In the

historical narrative, the people conclude that those who died incurred greater guilt for

their sins, and that at the judgment of God.

c. Challenges to those Drawing Conclusions. In the parable, the vinedresser challenges the

owner to give the tree another year of life. In effect, he appeals for mercy for the tree so

30 i.e., one sins before God, one repents before God, one will be judged by God.

that the tree might have opportunity to avoid death. In the historical narrative, Jesus

challenges the people's view of those who perished, making a call for repentance so that

the people might avoid perishing before God.

3. What issues are resolved in the parable?

a. The story reveals that the owner of the vineyard has the prerogative to cut down a

fruitless tree even as the Tower of Siloam may fall on any eighteen sinners

indiscriminately—indiscriminately with respect to the works of those who perished.

b. The owner is willing to consider an appeal from the vinedresser for the fruitless tree to

experience another opportunity to produce fruit – to receive mercy – just as the Lord

Jesus is willing to rescue from perishing those who respond to the call to repentance.

MEANING OF LUKE 13:1-9

As a result of the above analysis, I propose the following statement for the meaning of

Luke 13:1-9:

The peoples' conclusions about the greater sinfulness of those who suffered violent deaths are corrected by Jesus' explanation of God's prerogative to bring about the death of unrepentant sinners who have been given an opportunity for mercy.

The statement establishes parameters – it is the context – for making decisions about unknown constructions.31 In this analysis, the unknown construction mentioned is "likewise you will also perish." What is unknown about this statement is the type of comparison being made.

By providing a logical syllogism on the basis of recognizing type-groupings in verbal speech, one resolves the type of comparison:32

31 E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1965), 86-89. 32 Hirsch, Validity, 90-94, 265-274; Johnson, Expository, 143.

If the complement is God's prerogative to bring about the deaths of unrepentant sinners, and "likewise you shall also perish" is a component of that meaning, then "likewise you shall also perish" is a statement about the certainty of the deaths of sinners without reference to the nature of death or degree of death.

In the parable, the owner, who corresponds to God, seeks the death of the tree. He does not prescribe a violent means of death. The depiction of the owner is one within his rights to call for a death. Within the parable, the kind of death is not an issue. Therefore, in making a correspondence to the real word, the portion of the Meaning Statement related to the parable must be reflective of the scope of death rather than the kind of death.33 However, the degree of death is inherent within the discussion because everyone who dies as an unrepentant sinner perishes eternally.

Based on the above analysis, in order to provide a statement of the significance of the meaning34 of Luke 13:1-9 for the contemporary reader, while retaining an accurate representation of the text, I propose the following:

Peoples' assumptions about the violent judgment of God upon greater sinners should consider conversely God's right to bring about the deaths of all unrepentant sinners.35

33 The context – the Meaning Statement – limits the sense of both ὁµοίως (13:3) and ὡσαύτως (13:5). For ὁµοίως, “of the same nature” (Bauer W., W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2d ed. [Chicago, 1979], 566), God has the prerogative to bring about violent death. For ὡσαύτως, “in the same way” (BAGD, 899), God has the prerogative to bring about death by the falling of a tower. Yet, neither the nature or manner is certain; only death at the hands of God for the unrepentant is certain. Marshall suggests that ὡσαύτως might be a “literary variant” for ὁµοίως (I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. [NIGTC 3; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1978], 514). 34 Hirsch, Validity, 39, 62-67, 139-144; Johnson, Expository, 226-229, 240. 35 God's right in judgment is universal: “The progression of his argument, then, is that judgment will overtake people, whether Galilean or Jerusalemite or of some other religious origin, unless they repent. The universality of judgment, apart from repentance, is emphasized by the fourfold use of ‘all’ in vv 2, 3, 4, and 5,” (Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke [NICNT 3; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997], 514. This is true whether the use is attributive (πάντας 14

REASONING ABOUT THE I-35 BRIDGE INCIDENT

The statement of the significance of the meaning provides a means to judge the two pastors' use of Luke 13:1-9 in relationship to the collapse of the I-35 Bridge. The statement also provides a means to judge the criticism of Piper's Theology Proper leveled by the second pastor, the theologian, and the New Testament scholar.

First, as it relates to Piper's understanding of the collapse of the bridge as God's revelation concerning the need for sinners to repent, Piper seems to be drawing from the meaning of Luke 13:1-5. He writes:

The meaning of the collapse of this bridge is that John Piper is a sinner and should repent or forfeit his life forever… That is God’s message in the collapse of this bridge. That is his most merciful message: there is still time to turn from sin and unbelief and destruction for those of us who live. If we could see the eternal calamity from which he is offering escape we would hear this as the most precious message in the world.36

Piper judges Luke 13:1-5 to have significance to the collapse of the I-35 Bridge. Luke's idea is that any person who knows of the tragedies that befell the Galileans and the Jerusalemites should ponder his own need of repentance. Piper's concept – that "there is still time to turn from sin… for those of us who live" is the merciful message one should draw from the violent means of death caused by the bridge collapse – is reflective of Luke's idea.

Second, Piper's exchange with his daughter depicts a God who "always does what is wise," but who equally "had a purpose for not holding up that bridge." A wise God can and does exercise his will to withdraw his hand from holding up a bridge so that people die from the calamity, as in the case of the Tower of Siloam. God has the freedom of the owner in the parable.

τοὺς Γαλιλαίους, 13:2; πάντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, 13:4) or substantival (πάντες ὁµοίως ἀπολεῖσθε, 13:3; πάντες ὡσαύτως ἀπολεῖσθε, 13:5). 36 Emphasis added by this writer.

Piper's view of God's decree of the bridge collapse, contra Olsen, finds accord with the meaning of this passage.

Third, contrary to the criticism of Piper's exposition by Boyd, the passage is tying God's activity to the slaughter and the falling of the Tower by use of the owner in the parable. The tree will not come down arbitrarily, but by the will of the owner. Also, it is important to see that the problem of the assumptions of the people concerns the magnitude of the sinfulness of those who died and not of God's involvement. God's involvement is related by the fact that people are viewed as sinners of any type, (i.e., "all" repeated four times).

Fourth, Boyd questions why "God is still in the business of punishing people for their sins by sending catastrophes," even though Christ has died for sin. However, this question misses the mark. God is not punishing people for their sins by sending catastrophes. Catastrophes merely are one of God's instrumental means of death. Instead, the passage teaches that God eternally judges those who do not repent. Some meet eternal judgment after a peaceful death in their sleep after 95 years of life. Others go to eternal wrath before age twenty due to a bout with a rare form of cancer. Still others perish after the collapse of a bridge. God is free to bring about death as he chooses. A violent death is simply one means given for unrepentant sinners to enter eternal judgment.

Fifth, Luke 13:1-9 frees God from accusations of being vindictive, or at least of the accusation that Calvinists (wrongly) depict God in this manner. God is not vindictive in the sense of "spiteful." God is free to do as he wills toward his sinful creatures just as the owner of the fig tree is free to cut down a barren tree. God is not being spiteful in dealing with unrepentant sinners. He is being just. 16

Sixth, Witherington suggests that Piper's view of God's involvement in calamity has "no clear sense of secondary causes," and is "closer to the fatalistic [God] found in the Koran, than to the one found in the New Testament." However, the passage places the deaths of the Galileans and the Jerusalemites at "the doorstep of God" by means of Pilate and the Tower. It does not place them there because of a greater sinfulness on the part of those who died. It places them there by means of God's freedom. Again, Jesus does not direct his rebuke of the people at their understanding of God's activity, for the owner can cut down his tree. Jesus directs his rebuke at the assumption that the means of death indicated a measure of sinfulness of those who died. But the Divine Owner can cut down any sinner by any means he wishes.

CONCLUSION

Was God involved in the collapse of the I-35 Bridge? He most certainly was involved because he appoints all people to die (cf. Pss 90:3-11; 139:16; Rev 1:18), and he appoints all unrepentant sinners to perish after death. God exercised his freedom to bring people to death by a violent means with the collapse of the bridge, whether you wish to state it passively (i.e., "God did not hold up the bridge") or actively (i.e., "God brought down the bridge by means of 'x'").

While people may not have discerned their own need for repentance based on the bridge calamity, the personal need for repentance is the very message that rang out from God.

That message, however, might be heard only if we preach that message, just as Jesus had to clarify the people's understanding of the slaughter and the fall of the Tower so that they did not falsely interpret the general revelation. The fall of the bridge, like any other great tragedy, provides an opportune time for the beautiful-feet work of believers. The most compassionate thing we can do is weep with those who are weeping, while also warning them that their weeping will be far greater if they do not repent from sin and turn to Christ. 17

Finally, I must say a few words with respect to Olson's view of the Calvinistic concept of

God, and with respect to Boyd's view of the activities of Satan and God in catastrophe. The portraits of God these two men present appear to be derived from an unwillingness to allow for mystery in our theology. As finite creatures, we have an accurate understanding of God from the

Scriptures, but an incomplete understanding of God. We are not as vast as he is, so we cannot possibly contain his understanding on all matters, nor can we possibly have insight into all of the purposes of his decrees.37 We only can say what the Scriptures say about God.

The Scriptures depict a completely good God who rules absolutely over all of his creation. The Scriptures also depict a God who brings about death and tragedy. The God of

Scripture sent his Son to die for the whole world, but chooses to save only the elect. Reconciling such points does not demand a logical process of linear reasoning that resolves the paradoxical portrayal of God in the Scriptures. Instead, reconciling such points awaits seeing him face to face. In this life there is mystery when we come to the end of human understanding of what is taught in tension in Scripture. In the next life there will be clarity when we come to the beginning of eternal understanding of what we only see in glimpses in the Scriptures. As said in

Job 26:14, "Behold, these are but the outskirts of his ways, and how small a whisper do we hear of him! But the thunder of his power who can understand?” We just are beginning to rub against

God when a thunderstorm floods the earth, when a Tower falls, or when a bridge collapses. He is only whispering! We will spend eternity enjoying him roaring.

In this view of God, there is room for the activity of Satan, as taught in Scripture. But that room is not in existence in order to remove God from providential involvement in calamity, moral evil, or natural evil. We need only to read Habakkuk to see God's involvement in moral

37 See Isa 55:8-9; Rom 11:33-36; 1 Cor 13:8-12; 2 Cor 4:18; Heb 8:5; 9:24-24; 10:1. 18 evil. Yet, while holding to mystery, we also understand that man is culpable for moral evil and

God remains free from culpability for evil (cf. Jas 1:13-18). Calvinists should not make any apologies for holding these tensions together.

Likewise, Calvinists, following the view of God consistent with the depiction of God in

Luke 13:1-9, should not feel the need to give greater weight to the role of the free will of people in a world of evil. Evil exists because Adam brought evil into the world (Rom 5:12-21). Each of us is inherently evil. But giving more weight to free will allows us to do what free will of evil creatures always will cause us to do: we will suppress the truth about God.

As a pastor who loves his people, I must preach of a God who is free to do all things as the Eternally Good God. I cannot promote a God who is limited by anything or who grants unrestrained freedom to creatures that are sinful. To do so would make for a worse calamity than the collapse of a bridge. We would instead collapse upon ourselves the very right of God to be

God.