23 April 2024
Bailey lays out Luke 19:1-9 in rhetorical analysis, what he calls inverse parallelism: ABCDEDCBA.
A. Jesus passes through New Jericho
B. Zaccheaus, wealthy tax collector
C. Crowd blocked his view
D. Climbed the tree
E. Jesus announced Zach would host Him
D. Down the tree
C. Crowd murmured
B. Zaccheaus declares restitution
A. Jesus proceeds with him, declares him redeemed
Bailey notes that some in the crowd were likely disappointed that Jesus was not interested in staying in the area, but was shortly to begin the climb up the ridge toward Jerusalem. This is the approach where Herod had planted all those sycamore trees, coming down the slope toward his villa, the (New) Jericho.
Zacchaeus was a tax-farmer. He paid the government a hefty fee upfront, and received a license to collect it all back, with interest, as taxes on the trade passing through there. It's likely he owned several such contracts, and was involved in collecting several different taxes. It would have made mainstream Jews hostile enough had he been collection royal taxes for the Herodians.
Rome was on record not trusting Jews to tax their own on behalf of the empire, and Bailey gets that wrong. Collecting for the royal house of Herod would get him classed as a Gentile-in-effect, and it justified all kinds of blowback. Pharisees said it was legal to lie to them. The label "tax collector" was synonymous with "sinner". His entire household was ritually unclean, and he could not enter the Court of Women, even.
Not only did the crowd hate him, but he was short in stature and couldn't see Jesus as long as the crowd was tightly packed around Him. But Zach had no doubt heard that Jesus was friendly with his kind. Powerful men never ran in public; it was humiliating. Others ran for them. Zach ran up ahead and hid in a tree that was known to have low limbs and very large leaves thickly covering itself. Everything he was doing would be embarrassing if he were seen.
So, the scene takes on a new significance with these details, the crowd not happy Jesus kept going and Zach literally hiding from public notice. About the only reasonable explanation is that he failed to hide himself completely. The crowd probably murmured his name when he was spotted, so Jesus overheard it. (It doesn't have to be a miracle.) What Jesus does next might even be an intervention to save the man's hide.
Instead of calling him an oppressor of the nation, He changes His plans and decides He will stay in town, after all -- at the house of Zacchaeus. This is not the host the locals would have selected from their number. Thus, Jesus suggests something unheard of, choosing His own host. Granted, there is the matter of entering a defiled home, but Zach takes care of that during the evening banquet by announcing his repentance, straight down the code of Mosaic Law and more.
Bailey notes correctly that Zach follows Hebrew custom of exaggerating, because it's unlikely he could do literally what he claimed. The hyperbole demonstrates sincerity in this setting. Had he been more restrained, the guests would have expected nothing at all. Now, they know he intends to change his ways and play fair.
Jesus announces that salvation has come to his household. The verbal embrace is critical; it is a statement to His disciples about the depth of forgiveness and compassion He expects to see His Messianic servants dish out to sinners who repent. These are the kind of people He came to bring into His kingdom.
Comments
Jay DiNitto
I'll admit, as a short kid who was lightly teased directly or implicitly, I liked hearing the Zacchaeus story in church/Sunday school.
This document is public domain; spread the message.