Judging Zaccheus

Luke 19.1-10 describes Jesus entering Jericho on his way to Jerusalem with a huge crowd around him. The passage also describes a certain man there in some detail.

1. His name was Zaccheus, which means "pure, innocent"
2. He was a chief tax collector, and he was rich
3. He was of "small stature" (even Luke was politically correct!)
4. He was eager to see who Jesus was, to the point he climbed a tree for a good look
5. He welcomed Jesus into his house (right after Jesus invited himself in!)
6. He stood up for Jesus by giving half his possession to the poor and offered to pay back four-times for any money he had extorted

One, Luke mentioned him by name. IMHO, that indicates that became a well-known figure in the church; otherwise, Luke wouldn't have bothered with his name. This further indicates that Zaccheus' initial glad reception of Jesus lead to a deep repentance and a fruitful life.

Two, he had become rich by doing a dirty job. There were two kinds of tax collectors. The first refers to petty officials like the apostle Matthew, who collected tolls and tariffs for the Romans. Nobody liked them, but they weren't in a position to do anybody harm. The second kind, like Zaccheus, oversaw the collection of the taxes. Based on the census, the Romans set an amount of money owed by a district and contracted with chief tax collectors. As long as the tax collectors handed over the set amount, the Romans let the tax collectors gather the money however they wanted. The contracts no doubt paid well, but many chief tax collectors abused the system by extorting additional tax money and pocketing the difference, and there was little the locals could do about. I imagine Zaccheus never went out in public without bodyguards.

Three and four together show how eager Zaccheus was to get a good look at Jesus. Apparently, he wasn't too concerned about what people though about him, which probably came with his job. Imagine how he felt when Jesus stopped right under him, looked up, addressed him by name, and told him to hurry up and climb down!

Five, Zaccheus showed humility, confidence, and hospitality to Jesus. Jesus had just embarrassed him by telling him to come down from the tree and then invited himself to stay at Zaccheus' house. I can imagine the crowd bursting into laughter at Jesus remark, given the circumstances and the fact that they despised Zaccheus. Furthermore, Jesus was a religious teacher, and Zaccheus and his kind were no doubt the subject of unkind remarks during sermons at the synagogue. Last, Jesus had at least twelve disciples with him, all of whom had been walking all day, and Zaccheus would have to house, feed, and provide baths for all of them. Zaccheus responded by quickly climbing down from the tree and giving Jesus a warm welcome.

Six, Zaccheus made a grand gesture when the crowd began to grumble against Jesus. People considered Zaccheus a "sinful man"; when the term was applied to a woman, it meant she was a prostitute. I imagine Zaccheus was used to people talking bad about him, but Zaccheus suddenly felt the need to justify himself before Jesus. He gave half of his possessions to the poor, and he offered to pay back four times the amount of anything he had extorted from anybody.

So, what kind of person was Zaccheus? I have heard that he was greedy and that, after he paid back four-times on all his ill-gotten gains, he was deeply in debt. We might assume that, because many chief tax collectors were dishonest, Zaccheus was also dishonest. I disagree.

First, Zaccheus did not say he would pay back four times for all the amounts he had extorted from people. He said he would pay back four times if, anything, anybody. Zaccheus was plainly saying he dealt honestly in his business, and he challenged anyone to prove otherwise, putting his money where his mouth was. Giving away half his possessions up front shows how serious he was. Needless to say, the story would not have come down to Luke if Zaccheus had not immediately made good on his claim.

Second, Jesus knew who Zaccheus was and decided to invite himself to Zaccheus' house before Zaccheus said a word to him. Perhaps the Spirit inspired Jesus to see into Zaccheus' heart. Or, perhaps Zaccheus had a reputation for giving to the poor, and Jesus had planned in advance to reach out to him. Regardless, Jesus saw something in Zaccheus, this rich "sinner", that he did not see in a rich, religious ruler (Luke 18.18-30.)

What kind of person was Zaccheus? We really don't know. He had a dirty job, but we don't know how he started into it. One possibility is that his father was a chief tax collector, so he became one also. That was typical of the time. If so, he wouldn't have many other opportunities, because his father would have been a social outcast. People despised Zaccheus and called him a "sinner", but that was because of his job, regardless of how he handled it. His only relationships were with other outcasts or non-Jews. He would be excluded from the synagogue. But none of this speaks to his character. He immediately responded to Jesus, he gave his wealth to the poor, and he build a good reputation in the church.

My real point here is about judging others before we really know them. Zaccheus was a leader in a dirty business, and people generally despised him. It is easy to jump to the conclusion that he was greedy and dishonest. But the few facts point to him acting honestly in the face of huge temptation, that he was concerned for the poor, and that he desired to find God. The reality is that the man Jesus found perched in a tree was somewhere in the middle between saint and sinner. Just like the rest of us.

The Rich Man and Lazarus

In Luke 16.19-31, Jesus tells a parable contrasting the fates of a certain rich man and a beggar named "Lazarus". A unique feature of this parable is that one of the characters, Lazarus, is given a name. Why is that?

I've often wondered why certain people in the gospels and Acts are mentioned by name. Some are obvious, such as the apostles, since everyone knew who they were. One that surprised me is Simon the Magician from Acts chapter 8. It turns out that he subsequently traveled to Rome, had himself declared a god, and became one of the first heretics. Thus, in a bad way, he was well known as well. I suspect that people called out by name were generally well known already, and the authors added their names because of this. However, "Lazarus" in the parable is said to have died and gone on to Heaven.

I think that John, who wrote his gospel decades after the others, intended, in part, to answer some of the questions left by the previous authors. Specifically, he devoted a lengthy passage in John 11 to a family in a small village outside Jerusalem. Mary was very well known as the one who poured expensive perfume on Jesus before his death. Her sister was immortalized in Luke 10.41 when Jesus chided her saying, "Martha, Martha!" They also had a brother named Lazarus whom Jesus famously raised from the dead. Along with telling a powerful story, John does addresses two issues from the previous gospels. First, he presents Martha as a strong woman with deep faith whom Jesus loved. Second, he explains why Jesus, and Luke in recounting it, used a real name in a parable.

When Jesus raised Lazarus, the news spread rapidly, so that even the chief priests felt compelled to act against Jesus. Now, imagine Jesus telling this parable and using Lazarus as a key character. It ends with the rich man begging Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his brothers of their fate.

"³⁰But [the rich man] said, "No, father Abraham, rather if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent." ³¹And [Abraham] said to him, "If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead."

Some critics complain that God, if he were real, would do more to reveal himself to people. Jesus did countless public miracles, and yet he was put to death. The problem is that not that God has failed to reveal himself, but that people stubbornly refuse to acknowledge him.

Forcing Our Way Into the Kingdom

I was reading Luke 16 when I reached verse 16. The NIV says:
"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it." Can we really force our way into God's kingdom?

The Greek word "biazo" means to force someone to do something against their will, often through the use of violence. Did Jesus really mean to say that people can violently force their way into God's kingdom against God's will? I have heard preachers claim that Jesus is calling us to make every effort to enter the kingdom; the goal of this preaching is to motivate people to take their salvation seriously. While I agree with the sentiment, I can hear Jesus saying, "Enter through the narrow gate," but not, "Kick the gate in!"

Here is my own translation of the verse.
"The Law and the Prophets [stood] until John. Since then, The kingdom of God is proclaimed, and each forces himself against it."

First, I put "stood" in brackets because the Greek leaves the verb out; it must be understood from the context. Second, I corrected the person, "each" and "forces" are both third person singular. To me, this is typical of Luke, who tends to focus on the individual. Also, the verb is in middle voice, so "forces himself" (or, "herself".)

Finally, the preposition "eis" has the base meaning of "into". Thus, the NIV translation is "correct". At the same time, it ignores the fact that the Greek language is highly nuanced, and wooden translations can simply miss the real meaning. I prefer the translation "against".

So, how do we know what Luke really meant? First, we use a dictionary, in my case, the BDAG. As it turns out, "eis" has a number of related meanings, not just "into". It can also mean "in", "toward", "to", and, in entry 4.c.alpha, in a hostile sense, "against".

My understanding of this verse is that people are trying to forcibly change the course of the kingdom, rather than submitting themselves to it. They want citizenship among God's people, but they want to dictate the terms, rather than accepting Jesus' teaching.

This approach seems to fit the preceding two verses, the Pharisees were sneering at Jesus' teaching, and Jesus strongly rebuked them. John and Jesus preached God's kingdom, and the Pharisees opposed their teaching, promoting their own interpretations of the Law and the Prophets instead. We should keep in mind that the Pharisees saw themselves as the keepers of true doctrine and the shepherds of the masses. As God, through John and Jesus, tried to change the course his people were following, the Pharisees were failing to understand and ended up opposing God instead of serving him.

One problem I see has to do with why Luke put this verse in such an awkward form. One solution is that he fitted a quote from a source, an oral or written account, into his own narrative, and he didn't want to modify the quote too much. Personally, I believe that source was Matthew's gospel, which I believe was written some 15-20 years earlier. Looking at Matthew 11.12 (NIV):
"From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it."
Note that the translators used "subjected to violence" here, where they used "is forcing" in Luke. Verses 17 and 18 also have parallels in Matthew.

I see two lessons here. First, we must be careful about drawing conclusions from single verses, especially when those conclusions do not fit well with the overall themes of the Bible. The idea of getting fired up and storming our way to salvation might be appealing to some, but that simply cuts across the clear theme that we are saved by God's grace as we put our faith in Jesus.

Second, we need to pay attention to the Pharisees. We can view them as vile hypocrites, and some of them were. However, the reality is that the Pharisees were largely a grass-roots movement that sought to keep the faith even as the religious leaders became wealthy, political, and worldly. The vast majority of Pharisees were poor shopkeepers who lived for God's word. For those of us living in the United States, this should sound familiar. The fact that many of them became so engrossed in their traditions that they couldn't see God living among them and ended up opposing him should be sober warning to us all.

Personally, my faith in God through Jesus has only grown deeper. I came to faith because of the Bible, and I remain convinced that it is God's word. On the other hand, my understanding of the Bible has changed, sometimes radically, as I have allowed my thinking to be challenged by objective evidence. I am comforted that, even as I have put aside many of my old interpretations, my new interpretations make me even more convinced of the inspiration of God's word and its essential truthfulness.