Luke 19:1-10 is the pronouncement story of Zacchaeus. The source is material unique to Luke. I will direct attention to the context of the story, which I think helps us understand how Luke viewed it. I will interpret the story as a conversion story. However, it has some unique features that may make it a vindication story. I doubt the ambiguity is intentional. This story provides an opportunity to reflect upon the importance of forgiveness, confession, repentance, and justice.
The Zacchaeus story both echoes and reaffirms some of the previous themes found in Luke's gospel. It recalls the concepts of salvation and wealth. Moreover, Luke's emphasis on sight and the actions of the crowd poignantly connects with the previous episode of Jesus' healing of the blind man.
The story of Zacchaeus follows the story of another encounter of Jesus on his way to Jericho. In 18:35-43, he meets a blind man, who, despite the hindrance of the crowd, garnered Jesus’ attention and his healing. What is interesting about both accounts — in which strangers respond positively to Jesus — is that they both follow Luke’s report of the obduracy of the apostles. Following the third passion prediction (9:22; 17:25), the disciples have no comprehension of the mission of their master (18:34). By contrast, although they did not know the full ramifications of Jesus’ purpose, the strangers Jesus met on the road knew that he was special and trustworthy. After the story of Zacchaeus, Jesus tells only one more parable before he prepares for his entry into Jerusalem. It seems then that Luke has placed this story at a prominent place in the narrative, as a positive example of a response that coalesces many themes of Jesus’ itinerant ministry. Right outside Jericho, the healing of the blind man not only resulted in his following Jesus, but also changed the stifling crowd to one that issued forth in praise to God (18:43). The reader might expect that even greater miracles would happen within the town itself. Jericho could very well just be a town through which Jesus happens to travel, but for Luke the only other time that we hear of this town is in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Violent people attack the man in the parable on his way to Jericho (Luke 10:30). It seems that the roads from Jerusalem to Jericho were rife with danger, but the city itself was a wealthy city built by Herod the Great,[1] a fitting place to meet a character like Zacchaeus.
1He entered Jericho and was passing through it. Jesus now enters Jericho, where he will find yet another person unable to see Jesus: Zacchaeus. Jesus has no plans to stop. He is simply "passing through it" en route to Jerusalem (see 18:31,19:28). The setting for this last incident in the travel narrative Luke has been providing is the wealthy Greco-Roman city of Herodian Jericho. This city, nothing like the Old Testament Jericho, was a beautiful municipality known for its fine buildings, wide streets, public squares, and well-appointed homes. Located near the Jordan River, Jericho was a major stop on the trade routes between Jerusalem, Judea, and cities that lay to the east. It was, therefore, an important customs and tax center, where toll collectors could shake down their victims, and beggars could confront the wealthy (cf. 18:35-42). 2 A man was there named Zacchaeus, a Greek form of pure or innocent, calling Zacchaeus innocent or pure is a little like having the most grumpy, gloomy person in your office named Joy. He was a chief tax collector (ἀρχιτελώνης) the only character so designated in the New Testament. Interestingly, the term is a hapax legomenon, used only here in the NT and does not appear anywhere else in extant Greek literature. Consequently, the meaning of it is unclear. It may refer to someone who "bought the local taxation rights from the Roman government."[2] Therefore, he may have had a contract with the government and hired other tax collectors to work for him.[3] In 5:27-32, Jesus calls Levi to follow him and then proceeds to have dinner at Levi’s house. The Pharisees protest Jesus’ actions and group tax collectors with sinners. In the eyes of the Pharisees, these two groups are people with whom the “righteous” should not engage (cf. 15:2). Again, in 7:34, Jesus repeats the Pharisees’ depiction of him as a “friend of tax collectors and sinners.” Finally, in 18:9-14, Jesus tells a parable about a Pharisee and a tax collector who go to the temple to pray. In his prayer, the Pharisee boasts about not being like other people, especially the tax collector, whereas the tax collector humbly asks for mercy. Through this parable and through his interactions with tax collectors, Jesus combats the popular stereotype of tax collectors and emphasizes that God has called them as well. A reader of Luke’s gospel might think of Zacchaeus as a traitor to his people who exploits others for his own good, but if that reader has been paying close attention to Luke’s narrative, she or he would have learned that tax collectors generally fare well in Jesus’ life and stories (Luke 3:12; 5:27-29; 7:29; 15:1; 18:10-14). Jesus disregards popular opinion about them. Indeed, the rule of God breaks social boundaries and explodes social expectations. He was also rich. The author does not say Zacchaeus was a "rich tax collector," but that he was a tax collector "and was rich." The implication is clearly that his wealth derived from the assiduous pursuit of his occupation. 3 He was trying to see (ἰδεῖν) who Jesus was. but on account of the crowd he could not, because he was short in stature. Two obstacles combine to thwart the tax collector - the crowd blocks him off from view and because he is short (another intriguing detail), he cannot see anything from his back-row perspective. Zacchaeus is seeking to see Jesus, but his reason for seeking out Jesus is that he does not know who Jesus is. Zacchaeus is curious. However, just like the blind man he is unable to see Jesus, not because of his eyes, but because of the crowd. This may be an indication of the hugeness of the crowd, all of whom are also trying to see Jesus, but this does not seem to be Luke’s point when we learn the final detail about the character Zacchaeus, namely, that he is a man of small stature. So, just like the blind man, something about his physical makeup hinders him from seeing Jesus. This makes him an unusual character, indeed. Socially, he has wealth and power as the chief tax collector, but physically, what differentiates him from his neighbors and even generates some disdain is because of his height. He is a mix of both power and puniness. the parallels between the previous healing of the blind man episode (18:35-43) and this story begin. Both men want to see -- one wants physical sight and the other wants to see Jesus. By juxtaposing these stories, Luke highlights the importance of the theme of sight. The blind man, unable to see, asks the crowd what is going on. They answer him that Jesus of Nazareth is passing by. Later, the crowd tries to prevent him from crying out to Jesus (18:39). Here, the crowd operates obstructively to the blind man's quest for sight. Similarly, Zacchaeus, due to his small stature and to the crowd, is unable to see Jesus. Here again, the crowd serves an obstructionist function.[4] Yet, each man overcomes the obstructions through his determined actions. 4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore tree to see (ἴδῃ) him, with its low-spreading branches making easy for a short person to climb, because he was going to pass that way. We also learn that Zacchaeus has ingenuity and is persistent. He circumvents the problem presented by the crowd. He runs ahead of them and climbs up a sycamore tree, or more precisely, a fig-mulberry plant, which must have provided enough height for him to get to see Jesus. This also shows that he is willing to endure the teasing of the crowd, who must have thought it funny that their chief tax collector, short man that he was, was up in a tree! Waiting out on a limb, he waits to see Jesus. The blind beggar called out to Jesus. Zacchaeus does not. 5 When Jesus came to the place, he looked up (ἀναβλέψας) and said to him, “Zacchaeus, hurry and come down; for I must stay at your house today (σήμερον).” Given that Jesus “must” stay “today” in the house of Zacchaeus, for Luke, reminds us that Jesus' travels are not simply the unmapped wanderings of an itinerant preacher, but they reflect the Son of Man's divinely ordained path. Zacchaeus has altered the plan of Jesus; whose intent was simply to pass through Jericho. Instead, he will spend the night. “Today” suggests the urgency the of the day of salvation that appears elsewhere. In 2:11, the angels tell the shepherds that “today” Jesus is born in the city of David. In 4:21, after Jesus reads the Isaiah passage, he announces to the audience that his presence “today” fulfills this Scripture (cf. 23:43). In each case, “today” emphasizes the divinely appointed time of salvation. God has come now to redeem Israel and the nations (24:45-47). This tax collector’s redemption is part of God’s divine plan and timing. 6 So he hurried down, doing as Jesus asked, and was happy to welcome him. He appears delighted that Jesus has singled him out, especially since Jesus has attracted such a large crowd. We may read this as a conversion statement that Luke so understates that the reader could easily miss it. His happiness contrasts starkly with the sadness exhibited by the rich ruler who refused the salvation Jesus offers because of its price. It appears from the previous texts that Luke’s attitude toward tax collectors is benign, if not down-right supportive. Jesus continually chooses to associate with them. The joy of Zacchaeus is also the antithesis of the grumbling reaction of the crowd to the self-invitation of Jesus to the home of the chief tax collector. 7 All who saw (ἰδόντες) it, noting the importance of sight in this story, began to grumble, in agreement with previous negative evaluations of tax collectors and bemoaning the resolve of Jesus to be the guest of one, and said, “He has gone to be the guest of one who is a sinner.” The crowd saw the reaction of Jesus to the blind man in healing him and offered its praise to God (18:43). The crowd “sees,” but still do not understand the nature of the kingdom of God. True sight and understanding evokes praise for both physical healing and the dawn of salvation for all, including those called sinners. We then note that something extraordinary happens. With the complaints of the crowd ringing in his ears, 8 Zacchaeus stood there and incredibly said to the Lord, “Look, (Ἰδοὺ), inviting Jesus to see, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give (δίδωμι in present tense, “I give…” is better, emphasizing the now-ness of salvation) to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.” Here is where the passage becomes a minefield for the reader. In the Greek, the tense of these verbs is present, which leaves unclear whether Zacchaeus is here offering a defense of his character as a response to the complaints of the crowd, or whether he is announcing a change of character, i.e., a conversion. His promise is a magnanimous gesture that equaled or exceeded both Roman and Levitical law. Jewish Law required fourfold or fivefold recompense only for stolen oxen or sheep, if a person slaughtered or sold them, and if someone witnessed these actions.[5] Roman law required fourfold restitution in some cases such as wrongful accusation. At any rate, Zacchaeus' promise of restoration well exceeds what is necessary.[6] His stunning announcement occurs before he had the opportunity to hear Jesus proclaim his message or spend the night with him. His response to Jesus provides a fitting reversal to the episode of the rich ruler in 18:18-27. There the ruler refuses to let go of his possessions at Jesus' request and follow Jesus. Zacchaeus, on the other hand, without Jesus asking him, does what Jesus urged of the rich ruler. The tax collector, therefore, becomes an example of Jesus' statements in 11:25-27 that, although it is difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God, God can overcome this difficulty. Zacchaeus illustrates that all things are possible with God. Thus, we can view this statement as his confession of sin and repentance, pledging reparation for the past sins he has committed. In contrast, some would view the statement as a bristling protest of self-righteousness. Traditionally, interpreters view it as a resolve. The present tense is futuristic. Zacchaeus is a sinner who repents. The man who could not physically see Jesus at the beginning of the story now spiritually sees his own sinful state as a result of Jesus' call and invitation. As in the case of the blind man, Jesus brings sight. Zacchaeus' confession illustrates that he now sees and compels him to invite Jesus to see that he grasps the significance of this divinely appointed salvation moment.
Today, the court system recognizes restitution, which seeks to compensate people who have suffered loss due to the conduct of another. It focuses upon awarding the offended party for out-of-pocket expenses. It occurs in many civil cases. In personal injury cases, one might recover medical expenses and loss of wages, but not emotional distress. In breach of contract cases, one can recover any costs incurred in preparing to perform the contract. Zacchaeus is going beyond restitution. Restorative justice seeks to restore the offended party to their former condition, if possible. The focus is upon restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition.[7] Yet, we have no reference to his faith, repentance, or discipleship. Zacchaeus makes no statement of repentance, he does not beg Jesus for mercy, and Jesus does not offer forgiveness. The crowd identifies him as a sinner, but neither Jesus nor Luke do so. While I accept the traditional interpretation, due to the present tense of the verbs, he may be offering a defense of his character as a response to the crowds. He is stressing that everyone knows he follows the custom to give to the poor and to repay what he defrauded. It becomes a vindication story rather than a conversion or salvation story. One could support such a view by focusing that Zacchaeus does not adopt the humble position of kneeling before Jesus, begging for mercy, but rather, he stands before Jesus. He is defending himself against the grumbling of the crowd. The use of the present tense is iterative, repeating what is customary. Zacchaeus would then refer to his habit of giving to the poor and making restitution to those whom he has unwittingly cheated. In that case, Zacchaeus bristles, for while he may be a sinner, he gives to the poor and makes reparation for any extortion. In context, he contrasts with the rich young man, whose wealth made him walk away sadly from the invitation to follow Jesus (18:18-26).
9 Then Jesus said to him, “Today (Σήμερον) salvation (σωτηρία) has come to this house, because he too is a son of Abraham. Given what Jesus has said to the rich and powerful in this gospel, when Jesus opens his mouth to speak, all Jericho hugs itself in anticipation of hearing him give the man Holy Hell. Woe unto you! Repent! Wise Up![8] Yet, the response of Jesus is affirming. As readers of this gospel, we do not learn if Zacchaeus followed through on the pledge, but the word of Jesus is sufficient. He is a foil to the rich young man, showing that it is indeed possible for a person of wealth to find salvation: "What is impossible with men is possible with God" (18:26 NIV). Here is another "outcast" to whom Jesus offers salvation.
If this is a confession of sin story, it will be worth some time to reflect upon its importance. A sign of brutality is the presence of a clear conscience.[9] We do not become better persons by forgetting our capacity for wrong. Gossip that wounds others, cruel speech, theft, and callousness are daily transgressions. Ignoring the hurt they cause makes us increasingly inhuman toward each other. The insensitive persons less personal pain while inflicting more pain others. Remorse is not a waste, but an acknowledgment of the feelings and fragility of the other. We should not morbidly dwell on our faults — to do so is less a moral trait than a character disorder. Equally however, an inability to feel guilt, to admit what one has done to another, is a spiritual sickness. The beginning of repentance is regret.[10]
Most of us have had some experience with the dangers of telling others our struggles. You may have come across the story of four preachers meeting for a friendly gathering. During the conversation one preacher said, “Our people come to us and pour out their hearts, confess certain sins and needs. Let us do the same. Confession is good for the soul.” In due time all agreed. One confessed he liked to go to movies and would sneak off when away from his church. The second confessed to liking to smoke cigars and the third one confessed to liking to play cards. When it came to the fourth one, he would not confess. The others pressed him, saying, “Come now, we confessed ours. What is your secret or vice?” Finally, he answered, “It is gossiping, and I can hardly wait to get out of here.”
Sometimes, our honesty in confession will have surprising benefit. Once when Frederick II, an 18th-century King of Prussia, went on an inspection tour of a Berlin prison, he was greeted with the cries of prisoners, who fell on their knees and protested their unjust imprisonment. While listening to these pleas of innocence, a solitary figure in the corner caught the eye of Frederick, a prisoner unconcerned with all the commotion. “Why are you here?” Frederick asked him. “Armed robbery, Your Majesty.” “Were you guilty?” the king asked. “Oh yes, indeed, Your Majesty. I entirely deserve my punishment.” At that Frederick summoned the jailer. “Release this guilty man at once,” he said. “I will not have him kept in this prison where he will corrupt all the fine innocent people who occupy it.”
Undoubtedly, we have also experienced the benefit of looking at ourselves honestly before God and others. We may wonder if the God who made us and loved us, or people who have loved us, will do so if we confess our sin. I find the following sentiment beautiful, even if Protestants do not accept it as part of scripture.
But thou art merciful to all,
for thou canst do all things,
and thou dost overlook men's sins,
that they may repent.
For thou lovest all things that exist,
and hast loathing for none of the things which thou hadst made,
for thou wouldst not have made anything if thou hadst hated it.
How would anything have endured
if thou hadst not willed it?
Or how would anything not called forth by thee
have been preserved?
Thou sparest all things,
for they are thine,
O Lord who lovest the living.
For thy immortal spirit is in all things.
(Wisdom of Solomon 11:23-12:2)
An example of the power of what Zacchaeus does here comes from Alcoholics Anonymous. Addiction creates moral wreckage. People who become addicted to alcohol or other drugs might lie, cheat or steal in order to get and use their chemical of choice. Often what's left behind is a trail of shattered relationships. In this situation, apologies will not do. Alcoholics Anonymous calls for amends instead. Steps These Eight and Nine of Alcoholics Anonymous deal specifically with it. :
Step Eight: Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
Step Nine: Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
Amends are an attempt at restitution. Instead of making apologies, this is “making right the wrongs.” An amend has to do with restoring justice as much as possible. The idea is to restore in a direct way that which we have broken or damaged — or to make restoration in a symbolic way if we cannot do it directly. I have an example. Say that I borrowed $20 from you and never paid you back. If I go up to you and say, ‘Gee, I’m sorry I borrowed your $20 and spent it on drugs,’ that would be an apology. Making amends is giving your money back.[11]
The discussion regarding reparations is different. Suppose state government took land from black families before or after the Civil War. To be clear, it would have been justice if at that time the land returned to the rightful owners. After this many generations, however, reparations become seeking to correct an injustice of the past by nurturing resentment and injustice toward people today. If dealt with at the time, people who committed wrong could learn a moral lesson. The same is not true generations later. Such a mentality nurtures envy, greed, anger, and resentment. The path toward a positive future is the path of forgiveness and making sure such injustice does not happen again. Having a long memory regarding the things we have done wrong or the wrongs others have done to us is not the path toward a reconciled and redeemed future.
If we are reading a vindication story, Jesus comes to the aid of Zacchaeus by vindicating the character of Zacchaeus. Jesus will say his words to the crowds, vindicating Zacchaeus. In that case, “salvation” would mean the restoration of the character and reputation of Zacchaeus as a true “son of Abraham” and restoration to full standing within the Jewish community. Could Jesus simply announce that Zacchaeus is innocent? Would the Jesus Luke presents to the reader declare the vindication of a rich person, who had concern for the poor? If we are reading a conversion story, due to his confession of sin and repentance, Jesus can assert that Zacchaeus has gained salvation and is once again a true son of Abraham.
Yet, the soteriological flavor of the pronouncement by Jesus seems clear. It also seems unlikely that the crowd could hold a man in such low esteem who has beneficently parted company with half of his wealth, bestowing it upon the poor, and who is in the habit of restoring by 400 percent any miscalculation he has made on a citizen's tax return. An appreciative crowd would surely give way to such an honorable man, his short stature notwithstanding, when he tries to push his way through the throng to see Jesus. Thus, the notion that this is a vindication story seems unnecessarily cynical. Luke’s story works to both vindicate Zacchaeus and yet suggest that Jesus' necessary stay with this tax collector led Zacchaeus to a change of heart. whether Zacchaeus was outside the approval of his community because of their prejudicial attitude toward all tax collectors or because he truly was a sinner, Jesus' declaration restores him as a child of Abraham.
10 For the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost.”[12] In Mark 2:17, we read that Jesus declares he has come to call sinners, for they are the ones in need of a physician. Jesus is offering a final soteriological insight into his own ministry. We learn that this story fulfills the mission of the Son of Man. Looking back, this story is a quest story. Zacchaeus is in search of Jesus. His encounter with Jesus gives him insight into himself. However, we learn that Jesus is on a quest as well, as he has come to seek out the lost. It is a fitting commentary as he closes out his Jerusalem journey, like the mission statement he had offered at the beginning of the journey: "I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance" (5:32). Luke has thus bookended his story of Jesus by these two statements that define the salvific nature of his ministry. Zacchaeus, who wanted to "see who Jesus was," discovers that Jesus, the Seeker and Saver of the lost, is himself the quintessential Quester.
The story of Zacchaeus is a favorite story for many. We remember it from the song many of us learned as children.
Zacchaeus was a wee little man,
And a wee little man was he.
He climbed up in a sycamore tree
For the Lord he wanted to see.
And as the Savior passed that way
He looked up in the tree and he said,
“Zacchaeus you come down, For I’m going to your house today!
For I’m going to your house today!”
Zacchaeus was a wee little man,
But a happy man was he,
For he had seen the Lord that day
And a happy man was he;
And a very happy man was he.”
[1] (Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, 414-15)
[2] (Laurence E. Porter, New International Bible Commentary, ed. F.F. Bruce [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979], 1219)
[3] (Craig Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament [Downers Grove: IVP Press], 240).
[4] (John Nolland, Luke, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 35c [Dallas: Word Books, 1993], 907).
[5] (Craig Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament [Downers Grove: IVP Press], 241).
[6] (John Nolland, Luke, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 35c [Dallas: Word Books, 1993], 906).
[7] The United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Rights to a Remedy and Reparation for Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law.
[8] Noted by Frederick Buechner, Listening to Your Life.
[9] Polish Nobel Prize winning poet Wislawa Szymborska
[10] Rabbi David Wolpe, “The upside of guilt,” New York Jewish Week, August 10, 2010. jewishweek.timesofisrael.com. Retrieved May 23, 2019.
[11] —“Amends are more than apologies,” from the website of the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation. hazelden.org. Retrieved May 23, 2019.
[12] Many scholars think the saying in verse 10 is one Luke developed from Mark 2:17.
No comments:
Post a Comment