Luke 19:1-10

Possessions – Responsible Use 

Early in his public life Jesus had invited Levi, a tax collector, to follow him. Levi accepted the invitation enthusiastically, but before they went off together, Levi put on a great meal and invited his fellow tax collectors to eat with Jesus. On that occasion Pharisees had criticised Jesus for the company he ate with. Jesus’ concluded his mission journey with another meal with tax collectors. 

Luke 19:1-10  -  Jesus Commends Zacchaeus

The Zacchaeus event would serve to emphasise colourfully how faith could bring about the unthinkable (17:5-6). It would confirm the impact of the previous incident where the blind man’s faith had become the doorway to discipleship.

The action of Zacchaeus in giving away half his possessions to the poor was done on his own initiative. Restitution in cases of fraud referred to a requirement of the Book of Exodus:

In the original Greek text Zacchaeus’ comment is made in the present tense, not the future. Though the future sense may still be implied even with the present tense (for example: “From now on, I give ...”), it need not necessarily be read that way. Commentators disagree on the implications of the translation.

If the future sense is emphasised, then the point being made was that the intervention and openness of Jesus provided the occasion for Zacchaeus’ conversion.

What was to be understood by salvation coming today? Jesus could have been referring to the change of heart that had taken place in Zacchaeus, evidenced in the future tense I will give to the poor.. (or “From now on, I give...”).

The incident would have served to illustrate the path to salvation even for the rich – not simply Zacchaeus, but the wealthy of Luke’s community and of Christian communities across the centuries – provided that they:

• accept Jesus’ offer of inclusion
• recognise and accept the truth of past injustice
• generously use their resources to benefit the poor

When the present tense is accepted, another interpretation is possible. Zacchaeus would have been making the point that he had always been generous and, if he had inadvertently cheated, he had already made liberal restitution.

Salvation today in that case would have meant restoration of honour. Before Jesus had accepted the man, he had been condemned and excluded by the community, the grumblers, on the basis of their unchallenged assumption that all chief and wealthy tax collectors were automatically dishonest. This man was an exception  Jesus accepted his claim, and declared him to have a rightful place in the religious community: he too is a son of Abraham. Salvation in that case would have consisted in his being given the rightful honour due to him and his being reaccepted as belonging. 

Yet if he had been a generous man beforehand, it remains uncertain why his liberality had not been acknowledged previously and why he had not been appropriately honoured in the wider community.

Perhaps those who complained were Pharisees. They certainly would have well and truly categorised all tax collectors as sinners. No one liked taxes. Since some of the taxes in Israel went to fill the coffers of the oppressive Roman establishment, tax collectors were collaborators of Gentile oppressors and idolaters! Yet Pharisees had themselves been instrumental in fine-tuning many of the ritual taxes to be paid by peasants. And every Jew paid taxes to the temple and its priests. As well, with their own elitism, they oppressed the peasantry of Israel by their labels of “unclean”, and in the process marginalised many of those struggling against impossible odds to feed themselves and their families. 

Whatever the original sense of the incident, for Luke and for his Christian community of both rich and poor, the meal shared among sinners, the Eucharist, becomes the context and the celebration of inclusion and of the solidarity of all, and hence of salvation. Faith opens all to salvation, poor and rich.

Next >> Luke 19:11-27