Son Of Abraham (part 1 of 2)

Then Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this household, because he too is a son of Abraham!” – Luke 19:9  (NET)

Jesus, in a move that was likely to have been viewed as shocking by many of its witnesses, went “to be the guest of a man who is a sinner” (19:7b).  That man, of course, was Zacchaeus.  Zacchaeus was not only one of the hated tax collectors that worked in collusion with the Roman authorities and serving as a constant reminder of Israel’s continued subjection to a foreign power, but he was also tagged with the second epithet of being a “sinner” (someone who did not live up to covenant obligations).  Luke informs his audience that Zacchaeus was, in fact, a “chief tax collector” (19:2), and that commensurate with such a position, he “was rich” (19:2). 

When Jesus encounters Zacchaeus while passing through Jericho, He invited himself to the house of this rich, chief tax collector, saying “I must stay at your house today” (19:5b).  Though it is not explicit in the text, one can certainly find an implication that Jesus was going to be sharing a meal with Zacchaeus, who was going to serve as His host.  Now, this is not the first time that Jesus has made what some would consider to be a questionable choice in dining companions.  The Gospel of Luke, and indeed all of the Gospels, are littered with accusations of Jesus dining with “tax collectors and sinners,” which simply was not perceived to be comely behavior for a man that was somewhat clearly presenting Himself as a messiah figure. 

Beyond that, even when Jesus is not going to dine with those that are perceived to be the wrong people, and dines with the “right” people instead, He still comes in for criticism, be it for allowing a disreputable woman to wash His feet (chapter seven), or for not washing His hands (chapter eleven).  Seemingly, Jesus can’t quite do things properly.  Such is His burden.

Now, no record of Jesus’ interaction with Zacchaeus is provided.  Luke moves from the complaint about Jesus to reporting that “Zacchaeus stopped and said to the Lord, ‘Look, Lord, half of my possessions I now give to the poor, and if I have cheated anyone of anything, I am paying back four times as much!’” (19:8)  Why Zacchaeus does this is left for the audience to determine.  Clearly though, he is quite overwhelmed by Jesus’ presence.  Perhaps he was also a witness to Jesus’ healing of the blind beggar, which was done “As Jesus approached Jericho” (18:35a)? 

To that point, Luke write that “When all the people saw” this healing, “they…gave praise to God” (18:43b).  Obviously “all” does not mean “all,” as it is a use of hyperbole, and one should not presume that Zacchaeus was part of this group that offered praise to the Creator God as a result of the healing of the blind man, but surely, even if he did not personally witness it, the news of this healing would have come to the ears of Zacchaeus, as tax collectors were certainly attuned to the local goings-on.  Whatever the reason, the fact remains that Zacchaeus is reported to have said these things after welcoming Jesus joyfully (19:6b), and presumably after hearing the complaints of the people. 

It is Zaccheus’ expression of financial commitment that prompts Jesus’ statement of “Today salvation has come to this household, because he too is a son of Abraham!” (19:9)  Though this commitment by Zacchaeus and the resulting words from Jesus were probably surprises to Jesus’ audience, it would not necessarily come as a surprise to those that have been paying attention to Luke’s narrative.  In fact, the story of Zacchaeus represents something of a summary of what has come before and is a vindication of Jesus’ teaching. 

In chapter eighteen, Luke presents a parable from Jesus about “Two men” who “went up to the Temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector” (18:10).  In this parable, the tax collector “stood far off and would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, be merciful to me, sinner that I am!’” (18:13)  Without need to recount it here, suffice it to say that the Pharisee’s prayer was somewhat different. 

Jesus explains that “this man went down to his home justified rather than the Pharisee” (18:14).  Interestingly, if one went from the Temple to Jericho, one would be said to have “went down to his home” (to be fair, all are said to “go down” from Jerusalem) which fits nicely with the story of Zacchaeus (but Luke has also told the story of the “Good Samaritan, in which “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho” (10:30a), so it is not at all difficult to surmise that Luke wants his audience to think of the tax collector “going down” to Jericho from the Temple).  One also notices that this tax collector referred to himself as a sinner, which is also said of the tax collector Zacchaeus, which offers some additional symmetry to the accounts.  

Joshua's Battle (part 2)

That corruption of human nature creates an internal conflict against being fully human (as the Creator God intended for the divine image-bearers), and thus causing a falling short of the glory of God.  Of course, that conflict is inward but expresses itself outward, and shows itself through human interaction with this world and with other divine image-bearers. 

It would appear that Scripture is insistent that victory in this conflict, in which the original intention for the human being wins out, is somehow made through the operation of the Spirit of God through the very power of the Gospel, as like that which was experienced by Joshua and Israel as they attempted to subdue the promised land, none of the corrupted parts of human nature want to make peace via submission to Jesus and His claim to Lordship. 

As it stands, just as Adam and Eve are reported to have been successfully tempted with the idea that they could be like “divine beings,” human, and understandably because they are made as the image of their Creator, seem to have a desire to rule and worship themselves.  However, all must be conquered.  The analogy that is here being drawn thus raises a question, especially in light of the Gospel declaration that Jesus is Lord. 

On the surface, it is then easy to understand the need for Israel to enter the land and conquer.  Or is it?  Israel had promises.  Joshua had promises.  After the death of Moses, the God of Israel is said to have spoken to Joshua and said, “No one will be able to resist you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you.  I will not abandon you or leave you alone” (1:5).  Joshua was promised that none would be able to resist, but as can be seen, that didn’t stop many from attempting. 

The Creator God continued His words to Joshua, saying “Be strong and brave!  You must lead these people in the conquest of the land that I solemnly promised their ancestors I would hand over to them” (1:6).  So  here Israel has the promise that their God would “hand over” the land to them, but as one traverses the book of Joshua, and if the obvious supernatural intervention is stripped from the tale, the story that is left does not seem like much of a handover. 

Quite to the contrary, the handover of the promised land is presented as a near-constant battle.  As has already been noted, nobody was making peace with Israel (except one by stealth means, and it was a very tentative “peace”), and the covenant people were required to carry out a lengthy campaign in the land.  This stand against Israel was the case even in the face of what seemed to be well-known (at least as far as is communicated within the narrative itself), as Rahab, the famous harlot from Jericho, who must have had “contact” with a diverse group of people from the whole of what was the promised land, is shown to speak with a knowledge of the covenant God of Israel as she says “I know the Lord is handing this land over to you.  We are absolutely terrified of you, and all who live in the land are cringing before you” (2:9). 

So in looking at this situation with Israel, with their promises and with the supposed existence of the terror of Israel of which Rahab speaks, one is then forced to consider a thought: “If Jesus’ kingdom has been established, and He is reigning at this very moment, then why does it continue to be necessary to fight?  Why must there be a battle?  Why does death continue?”      

Salvation For This House (part 2 of 2)

What?  Unbelievable!  The people would have immediately began to wonder about this strange turn of events.  We read that “when they saw it, they all grumbled” (19:7a).  They said, “He has gone in to be the guest of a man who is a sinner” (19:7b).  There we have the reason for the shock and surprise.  There we have the reason for the grumbling.  Zacchaeus was considered to be a sinner.  In the language of the day, that meant that, at the least, Zacchaeus did not meet the requirements to find himself in good covenant standing.  What’s more likely is that Zacchaeus was a Gentile (or, as a sinner, considered to be like a Gentile). 

Regardless of the actual ethnic status, he was not thought to be part of the nation of Israel.  Again, he worked for the hated Roman oppressors, at cross-purposes to Israel.  He was unclean. So much worse then, that the man that they believed might be their Messiah, of all places to which He could have gone in Jericho, was going to go to a house into which not one of them would have lowered himself or herself  to enter, so as not to be defiled.  The question would have likely been raised: “Is Jesus in league with the Romans?” 

Nevertheless, Jesus went into the house of a Gentile (or, as said, one that was considered as a Gentile).  Zacchaeus, unless he was completely oblivious to what was happening around him (which, as tax collector, would have been unlikely), would have understood that the potential Jewish Messiah had come into his house.  The Messiah had come to him.  How does Zacchaeus respond?  Amazingly, he says, “Behold, lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor.  And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold” (19:8).  Zacchaeus responds in repentance.  More importantly, we need to hear Zacchaeus, the Roman official under the government of Caesar (kurios), calling Jesus “Lord” (kurios, or here, “Kurie”).  The accompanying action signifies that this is more than an honorific use of the word.  For him, it becomes titular.  So along with the repentance with the way that he has dealt with the people of Israel, in defrauding them, Zacchaeus responds in the way of faith, calling Jesus Lord, which is the mark of the covenant people going forward.  He also responds with a desire to generously give, which is significant, and should also be a pronounced mark of those who call Jesus Lord.    

How does Jesus respond to Zacchaeus?  He says that “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham” (19:9).  Jesus here enfolds Zacchaeus into the family of Israel, attaching him to Abraham (which seems to indicate Zaccaheus’ Gentile, or Gentile-like standing).  Yes, the Messiah has come to this Gentile, and the allegiance that shows forth from him in word and deed, is what has brought him into the family of Abraham, to enjoy the salvation, blessings, and responsibilities that are reserved for God’s covenant people.  That point is not to be missed, as here we see Zacchaeus justified (brought into the covenant family) by the trusting and action-spurring recognition Jesus was indeed Lord.  By faith, He believed that which is the message of the Gospel of Jesus as Lord of all creation; and the promises implied therein, and this principle of trusting in God’s promises, beginning with Abraham, is the way by which God extends the blessings of His covenant, His salvation, to all people. 

The author of the Zacchaeus story wants it to be obvious that be a person Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, circumcised or uncircumcised, that Jesus was sent into this world to gather up into the family of God and provide salvation to all peoples.  Through believing the message of the Gospel of Christ (which is the power of God for salvation), it can be said to all the families of the earth that “salvation has come to this house” (19:9a); and all peoples are made to be sons of Abraham, by faith in the Gospel. 

Salvation For This House (part 1 of 2)

He entered Jericho and was passing through.  And there was a man named Zacchaeus. – Luke 19:1-2a  (ESV)

The first ten verses of the nineteenth chapter of Luke tell the story of Zacchaeus.  As we go through this story of Zacchaeus, attempting to understand the truths conveyed herein, we must bear in mind to whom this Gospel of Luke has been written.  It has been written to a Roman government official, a believer, presumably a Gentile, named Theophilus.  That is important as it relates to this story.

It is said of Zacchaeus that “He was a chief tax collector and was rich” (19:2b).  In this role, he would have been quite hated by a sizable majority of the people of Israel with whom he came into contact, as he worked to collect taxes on behalf of the oppressive Roman government.  Thus, he served to perpetuate and enforce the rule that the people wished to throw off and bring to an end.  For what it’s worth, he would also have been known as a publican.  

The people of Jericho gathered to see Jesus, the one that they had heard about, and who some had come to believe might very well be the promised Messiah.  Though there were many views of the Messiah, one that was quite prevalent was one in which the Messiah was the individual that had been purposely sent by their Creator God to overthrow those who presumed to rule over God’s chosen people.  Not surprisingly, with the stir that the presence of Jesus created wherever He went, Zacchaeus wanted to see this Jesus as well. 

It is reasonable to presume that he also would have been fully aware of what was implied by messianic claims, especially as it related to his own job and his livelihood.  Normally, though he would have been the object of the scorn of the members of the family of Israel, being the chief tax collector would have afforded him a place of honor (though begrudging) when it came to significant happenings and public events, but in this case the people ignored him, which is understandable because of what was implied by all this talk of Messiah.  Of course, as is generally noted when people talk of Zacchaeus, it did not help that “he was of small stature” (19:3b). 

We all know how the story goes.  Zacchaeus, this chief tax collector for Jericho, “ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see Him, for He (Jesus) was about to pass that way” (19:4).  Would that not have been an odd sight for the people of Jericho?  Their hated chief tax collector, was climbing a tree so that he could get a glimpse of the Messiah, the One that was about to put him out of a job.  Not only that, but he ran.  Both of these activities were considered to be dishonorable, and a respectable man would not engage in them.  

Putting aside the potential shame of climbing a tree (hints of Jesus’ own ignoring of shame to come when He would effectively “run ahead and climb a tree”?) Zacchaeus had elevated himself so that not only was he going to be able to see Jesus, but also so that Jesus could see him.  It is likely that the people thought that Jesus, upon seeing Zacchaeus in the tree, would have some harsh words for him.  However, something quite surprising happens when Jesus encounters part of Rome’s oppressive cabal.  “When Jesus came to the place, He looked up and said to him, ‘Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, for I must stay at your house today.’  So he hurried and came down and received Him joyfully” (19:5-6). 

Humiliation

In looking at the life of King David, we come upon the story related to King Hanun of the Ammonites.  Though it is brief, it does make a telling point, fitting in with the Scriptural theme of exile and exodus in what is a rather obvious way.  Hanun’s father had died “and his son Hanun succeeded him” (2 Samuel 10:1b).  Upon learning of this event, “David said, ‘I will express my loyalty to Hanun son of Nahash just as his father was loyal to me’.” (10:2a)  To fulfill this desire, David sent a group of servants to Hanun so that they might express to him a message of sympathy.  For some reason, in a way that is reflective of the poor advice that would later be acted upon by Solomon’s son Rehoboam, Hanun was convinced that these messengers that were carrying a message of sympathy were actually spies.  In response, “Hanun seized David’s servants and shaved off half of each one’s beard.  He cut the lower part of their robes off so that their buttocks were exposed, and then sent them away” (10:4).  As a result, we find that “the men were thoroughly humiliated” (10:5b). 

Though as we read this, we do not find any wrongdoing on behalf of these men, or their king, in connection with this treatment at the hands of a foreign nation, the picture that is painted, through the shaving of the beards and the cutting away of the garments, is thoroughly exilic in nature.  With a reasonable degree of certainty, it can be insisted that the telling of this story amongst God’s people would conjure up thoughts of the curses promised by God in Deuteronomy.  Undoubtedly, these men, being so roughly treated, would have been subjected to ridicule at the hands of those who are oppressing them---bringing shame and humiliation upon them. 

David’s first reaction is to acknowledge the humiliation and exile that has come to them, telling them to “Stay in Jericho until your beards have grown again; then you may come back” (10:5c).  With this, David even speaks the words of exile (stay in Jericho) and exodus (then you may come back).  Not only would those that experienced and heard the story be reminded of the Deuteronomic curses and the faithful God that stood behind those curses made in accord with His covenant, but they would also have been reminded of the larger story of Israel in Egypt, and of Israel’s exodus from Egypt, especially considering the oft-told nature of that worldview-shaping story. 

In that there was no clear wrongdoing on behalf of this group of men, it is similar to the story of Israel in Egypt, as there is no Scriptural presentation of any reason for Israel’s subjugation there beyond the fact that a king eventually came to power in Egypt that did not know Joseph.  Is this not what we see in this story as well?  Clearly, David has a relationship with King Nahash of Ammon.  David said that Nahash had “been loyal” to him.  However, this relationship apparently did not exist with the son of Nahash, so it could be said that a new king came to power over Ammon, that did not know David.  The result here, just as it had been in Egypt, was oppression, and a humiliating display of domination that would have caused these men to figuratively “grown” for deliverance.  What comes of this?  When David learns of the suffering and shame that has come upon these messengers that he himself has sent out, he is indignant.  Just as Israel’s God would hear the groaning of His people in Egypt, David hears the groaning of these men and takes action.  They have suffered, and he is going to enter in to vindicate them in their suffering.  They have been sent into exile, and David is going to provide exodus. 

In this situation of exile in need of exodus, David takes the position that is occupied by the Lord in the story of the deliverance from Egypt.  Like the God of Israel’s disgust with Egypt, David is disgusted with Ammon (10:6).  Also like God, David sends a deliverer to carry out his wishes, sending “Joab and the entire army out to meet them” (10:7b), just as the Lord would send Moses to confront the oppressors of His people.  Though the Ammonites are not immediately put down, just as Egypt was not immediately put down, but rather, experienced numerous displays of power at the hands of God’s appointed representative, they eventually succumb to Israel.  We read about this at the beginning of chapter eleven, in that “In the spring of the year, at the time when kings normally conduct wars, David sent out Joab with his officers and the entire Israelite army.  They defeated the Ammonites” (11:1a).  In yet another remarkable parallel to the story of the Exodus, the defeat of those that had attempted to oppress the people of the Lord, and who had desired to shame and humiliate them, the Ammonites were defeated in the spring.  So too were the Egyptians.  Such is the ongoing and fascinatingly repetitive story of Israel’s faithful God.