Zac's Bad Rap

[Sherman]

I disagree that the traditional view of Zachaeus is a "bad rap." In fact, it is a perfect example of grace and redemption.

Jesus did not call to Zacheus because he was a righteous man nor because he was misjudged. Jesus called to Zachaeus because his heart longed to see Jesus. Then having hosted Jesus at his home, his heart was changed, and he repented of his unrighteous deeds.

And so it is with us. Jesus does not call to us because we are good or downtrodden. He calls to us when He sees we have a heart set towards Him. Then by hosting Him in our lives, His presence changes us so that we repent of our selfish, unrighteous ways.

That is the true beauty of the story!

Good morning Nebula,

You're right, the traditional story of Zacchaeus is a beautiful story of grace and redemption.

However, if we've understood it wrong, and Zacchaeus was actually a good man whom God called to work in a despised profession (by the religious people) and he was bearing the cross of being wrongly judged by the religious crowd like Jesus was, and we side with the evil religious crowd who believed Zacchaeus was evil, then it is as bad rap and he's being spoken of evil to this day.

Let's say God called you to be a bar-tender because He new that he could trust you to be His salt and light in a very wicked environment. You didn't drink or carouse. You shared the gospel when you could. You prayed for the people in bondage around you. Many came to repent under your ministry, be dilivered from alcoholism, and were born again and filled with the Spirit. Through you God kept these people from going to hell.

But all of your life, the self-righteous religous people rejected, shunned, and disdained you and you were rejected from the church because you worked in an evil environment and associated with evil wicked people. How would you feel? And then to have your life story told in such a way as to hide the good that you had done for years, wouldn't that be even worse, a bad rap.

Now whether God would call someone to be a bartender, that's another discussion. I use that example just as a way to equate what being a tax-collector was like in the opinion of the religeous people of the day.

Anyhow, it's just food for thought.

Blessings,

[Sherman]

Sherman, I certainly have no problem with anyone discussing possible alternative interpretations of scripture. My only concern is that in your studies, you may be coming up with ideas that are totally false, and teaching them in a way where people will take them as fact and be led astray. It is not that important in this particular thread, but would be a serious problem when it comes to a subject like divorce and re-marriage. I don't know why your other thread was closed, and since the moderators have been given the responsibility of making such decisions, we must abide with their judgements. Hopefully, we will eventually get a clear answer as to whether your divorce thread will continue or not? Either way, it appears you are a somewhat controversial person in the things you are promoting, and controversy usually causes conflict. Really, I was thinking that your threads belong in the Controversial section, but you have to have at least 100 posts before you can participate there.

I hope you will not be so discouraged that you cease to participate at Worthy Boards, but I also hope you are not so close minded that you won't consider the possibility you may be wrong in some of your key ascertions.

Butero, thanks for your gracious reply. Actually, if you read my reply to Ronald, you'll see that one of my foundational assumptions is that I am wrong in some of my beliefs and understandings of the Word, that's why I look to be corrected either through the Holy Spirit correcting me personally, or through the Word, or through the Body of Christ.

Understanding that Zac's story is not a big issue, I only had a couple of Greek scholars verify that my understanding of the story was not only viable, but actually the likely translation was sufficient for me to share it with others.

Concerning MDR, I actually gave my manuscript to many theologians and pastors before letting it be published. In fact, the first person I gave it too was the theologian that I knew would be most likely to disagree with everything that I wrote because he held and taught a very strict version of the traditional doctrine (basically no divorce and certainly no remarriage). I gave it to him because I knew that if there were any mistakes or misinterpretations of scripture, that he would surely point them out. He studied it for several weeks and gave it back to me with some comments, but no corrections. I had also been brave enough to ask him for an endorsement, knowing that it was very unlikely that he would even if he found nothing wrong with it. And I was right, he wouldn't endorse, not because of any error he found in it; but because he was afraid that in some way allow people to justify their divorce.

He was primarily concerned that I pointed out that marriage is breakable, not indissoluble as is traditionally taught. Let me ask you, which do you treat with more respect and care, a priceless fragile China vase, or an almost indistructable cast-iron pot? The China vase of course. In the same way we need to teach how valuable and how fragile marriage is. It only takes a few little foxes to spoil the vine. We need to be diligent to protect our relationships realizing that they are suseptable to attack and destruction. Anyhow, many other pastors and theologians did endorse my book, though they did express that it changed their understanding in many areas.

I was scared to give my manuscript for such scrutiny among such a wide variety of ministers and theologians, but I was greatly gratified at their endorsements. But out of everyone that I had preview the manuscript, the person that I was afraid to give it to the most (I was litterally shaking when I gave it to her) was a young lady, 20 years old, and married less than one year. She was inmature in her faith and lifestyle in many ways, but she loved God. I gave her my manuscript the weekend that she left her husband. I gave it to her without any pre-explanation of it, only asking that she read it and get back with me as to what it said to her. In no way did I want for it to encourage her to get a divorce, but I didn't know what it would communicate to her for sure.

Anyhow, she read the book and got back with me two weeks later and shared how it had positively impacted her. She realized how important marriage was. She realized that marriage was breakable and she was free to divorce her husband if he refused to repent of the way he was treating her (abuse). She was free to do this though all the religious people in her life would think evil of her. She was encouraged that God was for her and wanted what was best for her. All of this added together so that she was greatly encouraged to seek God because of the gravity of the decisions she had to make. She was empowered to trust that God had her best in mind. She was empowered to hold her errant husband to a standard of treating her right. And ultimately, she was empowered to wait on God to work things out. Thankfully, about a year later her and her husband were restored.

Well, that's enough about my book for now. I do want to thank you for your encouragement to stay with this group. I had almost decided to ask the moderators to close and remove this thread, the other threads, and all of my other posts. I don't want to argue over the word, and I certainly don't want to attack anyone else. I simply want to understand the Word more, and share what I believe the Lord has shown me. But I also want to remain open to correction.

I don't know why the moderators have suspended my other threads on divorce either. I assume that they're prayerfully considering the best way to handle them. It is a very controversial isssue and will probably need a greater level of envolvement of the moderators to keep down the personal attacks. I personally do my best not to ever attack someone else, but discuss the issue. I assume that everone is a mess like me though and will make mistakes. Anyhow, thanks again for your encouraging remarks.

Oh, and by the way, I checked on my website, it's suspended for now because I need to pay the bill that comes up every two years. I didn't recieve a notice that I remember, but anyhow that's why. I was waiting on my subscription to expire because I'm considering changing hosts.

I do pray that the Lord continues to richly bless you,

[nebula]

Good morning Nebula,

You're right, the traditional story of Zacchaeus is a beautiful story of grace and redemption.

However, if we've understood it wrong, and Zacchaeus was actually a good man whom God called to work in a despised profession (by the religious people) and he was bearing the cross of being wrongly judged by the religious crowd like Jesus was, and we side with the evil religious crowd who believed Zacchaeus was evil, then it is as bad rap and he's being spoken of evil to this day.

Let's say God called you to be a bar-tender because He new that he could trust you to be His salt and light in a very wicked environment. You didn't drink or carouse. You shared the gospel when you could. You prayed for the people in bondage around you. Many came to repent under your ministry, be dilivered from alcoholism, and were born again and filled with the Spirit. Through you God kept these people from going to hell.

But all of your life, the self-righteous religous people rejected, shunned, and disdained you and you were rejected from the church because you worked in an evil environment and associated with evil wicked people. How would you feel? And then to have your life story told in such a way as to hide the good that you had done for years, wouldn't that be even worse, a bad rap.

Now whether God would call someone to be a bartender, that's another discussion. I use that example just as a way to equate what being a tax-collector was like in the opinion of the religeous people of the day.

Anyhow, it's just food for thought.

Blessings,

I think you can be opening yourself to some dangerous territory with that interpretation. Would you use this passage to justify a Christian pimp or Christian drug-runner?

As for Zaccheus being a tax collector, even in the traditional interpretation he never quit being a tax collector. In those days, tax collectors obtained their sallaries by charging people extra money on their taxes. Tax collectors were hated because there was no regulation on how much they could collect for their salary, and thus it was easy for them to make themselves wealthy off of the people. Now if Zacchaeus was fair in his dealings, chances are good this would have been realized and word spread. Communities were much tighter then and there than in our modern society, you know.

Now Jesus knew the hearts of men, then why would Zacchaeus need to justify himself to Jesus? As for Jesus, He needed no defense from man.

The story shows the comparison between the self-righteous and the truly repentant.

For why else would Jesus then say: "9 And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost." (Luke 19)

In your interpretation, why would Jesus say, "Today salvation has come"? And why would Jesus add the note that He came to seek and save that which is lost?

[Guest LAW]

Sherman:

Luke 19:1 "...Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy."

To be a tax collector was to collect for the Romans an amount specified. The Romans were not paying him to do that. Whatever he wanted to extort from the taxpayers over and above went to him. Now how would a tax collector become WEALTHY except to have been extorting way too much money from those from whom he was to collect taxes.

I think Zacchaeus was hungering inside for a different kind of wealth--and he found it in Jesus.

[Sherman]

I think you can be opening yourself to some dangerous territory with that interpretation. Would you use this passage to justify a Christian pimp or Christian drug-runner?

As for Zaccheus being a tax collector, even in the traditional interpretation he never quit being a tax collector. In those days, tax collectors obtained their sallaries by charging people extra money on their taxes. Tax collectors were hated because there was no regulation on how much they could collect for their salary, and thus it was easy for them to make themselves wealthy off of the people. Now if Zacchaeus was fair in his dealings, chances are good this would have been realized and word spread. Communities were much tighter then and there than in our modern society, you know.

Now Jesus knew the hearts of men, then why would Zacchaeus need to justify himself to Jesus? As for Jesus, He needed no defense from man.

The story shows the comparison between the self-righteous and the truly repentant.

For why else would Jesus then say: "9 And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost." (Luke 19)

In your interpretation, why would Jesus say, "Today salvation has come"? And why would Jesus add the note that He came to seek and save that which is lost?

Nebula, no, I wouldn't use a Christian pimp or drug-runner as as example. I used bartender because it is a radical example in itself. But that's not the issue.

You're understanding of Jesus' words concerning salvation coming to Zac is a viable interpretation; I don't argue with that. But the Word does not explain exactly what that meant to Zac. As you know, Salvation is a very big word including many different aspects of ones relationship with God, others, and problems within yourself.

It's possible that Zac did repent under John's ministry and started doing buisness honestly as instructed by John. It's also likely that assuming he did live a wicked underworld life before that that he struggled with receiving the forgiveness of God, especially being that the religious people still rejected him.

I find it significant that Luke tells of the tax collectors repenting under John's ministry and being told to remain in their profession but to do it honestly (Luke 3:12-13), and in 18:9-14 he tells the parable of the righteous Tax Collector and the wicked Pharisee, and then in 19 Luke tells the story of Zac. This seems to be connected. This thread of stories is completely unique to Luke. So when you consider the extended literary context of the book of Luke, I think my understanding of Zac's story is the best, in my opinion.

Salvation for the Tax collector in chapter 18 could very well be salvation from guilt and condemnation.

But we don't know for sure. Either way, it's just good to know that God loves sinners.

[Sherman]

Sherman:

Luke 19:1 "...Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy."

To be a tax collector was to collect for the Romans an amount specified. The Romans were not paying him to do that. Whatever he wanted to extort from the taxpayers over and above went to him. Now how would a tax collector become WEALTHY except to have been extorting way too much money from those from whom he was to collect taxes.

I think Zacchaeus was hungering inside for a different kind of wealth--and he found it in Jesus.

Good evening Law,

Thoughtful reply, but though extortion was common, even expected among tax collectors, it's possible that Zac treated people right, not taking more than was right for him to do, and thus God blessed his organization. It's significant to note that John the Baptist in Luke 3 didn't tell repentive tax collectors to stop tax collecting, but told them to not take more than what was rightfully theirs to take. So apparently there were standards, probably a certain percentage of the taxes that they collected that they could keep. Wicked tax collectors would collect more than they were suppose to, and thus would make more money.

Concerning Zac being rich, if he was giving 50% of his wealth to the Lord, wouldn't God have been blessing him. And if he was one of the men who repented under John's ministry, then he was likely already wealthy to a degree, and then when he repented and started giving to the poor, treating people right, well God could have really blessed him.

Concerning the salvation that Zac experienced, well, it's possible that he was still feeling bad about the wicked lifestyle he lived before repenting under John's ministry and Jesus assured him that he was still a child of Abraham, though the religious community still rejected him. I think the parable that Luke records in chapter 18, is related to this also.

When studying a passage, it's important to note the immediate context, but it's also helpful to note the context of the whole book. What are common themes or events in the book of Luke that relate to this? What overall messages are the Holy Spirit communicating through the book of Luke. One of the messages I believe that Luke communicates is that the religious people who should have been good were actually evil, and many of the people that were considered evil by the religious were actually good, relatively speaking.

But both the traditional view and my view are simply speculation on our parts. Either view is valid, though I still think the way I see it is closer to what Luke meant to communicate. But I could be wrong. This is something that is certainly ok to understand differently I think.

By the way, Jericho is right in the area where John the Baptist ministered and that's where Zacchaeus lived.

Thanks for your input.

[nebula]

You're understanding of Jesus' words concerning salvation coming to Zac is a viable interpretation; I don't argue with that. But the Word does not explain exactly what that meant to Zac. As you know, Salvation is a very big word including many different aspects of ones relationship with God, others, and problems within yourself.

Sherman, are you basing this definition of "salvation" on Biblical standards? Jesus didn't come to earth to "self actualize" people, you know.

It's possible that Zac did repent under John's ministry and started doing buisness honestly as instructed by John.

I do believe this is called making an assumption and treating it as fact to support a theory.

It's also likely that assuming he did live a wicked underworld life before that that he struggled with receiving the forgiveness of God, especially being that the religious people still rejected him.

If he had changed his ways, the people would have noticed the next time he went around collecting taxes.

As for the issue of guilt - are you familiar with the sacrificial system that was still in effect during this time? If he had repented indeed, then by Law he would have gone to the Temple and offered a "sin offering" to atone for his sin. If he still felt guilt after both changing his ways and giving the sin offering, then he did not believe the word God gave in the Law that his sin was forgiven.

When Jesus healed the lepers, He told them to show themselves to the priests - which in essence was telling them to act in accordance with what the law said to do. Now if Zacchaeus had a problem with following and believing the Law, it iws more likely than not that Jesus would have addressed this - it was still His Law that He created, after all.

I find it significant that Luke tells of the tax collectors repenting under John's ministry and being told to remain in their profession but to do it honestly (Luke 3:12-13), and in 18:9-14 he tells the parable of the righteous Tax Collector and the wicked Pharisee, and then in 19 Luke tells the story of Zac. This seems to be connected. This thread of stories is completely unique to Luke. So when you consider the extended literary context of the book of Luke, I think my understanding of Zac's story is the best, in my opinion.

In that context, I see a progression. First you see the tax collectors being told to act honestly. The next time you "see" (even though a parable) a tax collector acknowledging his sin before the Lord. Finally, you see a tax collector actually changing his ways.

Salvation for the Tax collector in chapter 18 could very well be salvation from guilt and condemnation.

This statement is not in harmony with the totality of Scripture. What I see if that you have painted a picture of a man who came to "salvation" on his own power. By your theory, why did he need Jesus at all? After all, what did Jesus do - if he was answering the accusers himself? By your theory, I see Jesus as nothing more than a guru to pat him on the back and say, "Well done, grasshopper."

But we don't know for sure.

Your theory holds too many assumptions with no supporting evidence - unless you consider your interpretation to be the evidence for the assumption. A little circular, don't you think?

Either way, it's just good to know that God loves sinners.

Yes, but the sinners who do not repent still perish. Of course, the self-righteous are sinners, too, in just as much need of God's love as the tax collector. The only difference is that the tax collector understood and acknowledged his sin for what it is. And it was through Jesus' intervention in His life that brought repentance to fruition. If you miss this point, you have missed out on the whole Gospel message.

[RGR]

Concerning Zac being rich, if he was giving 50% of his wealth to the Lord, wouldn't God have been blessing him. And if he was one of the men who repented under John's ministry, then he was likely already wealthy to a degree, and then when he repented and started giving to the poor, treating people right, well God could have really blessed him.

I'm beginning to see Word of Faith doctrine here! The idea that if one is giving to God, God will make them rich!

1 Timothy 6:3 If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

6 But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8 But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. 9 People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. 11 But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness. 12 Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

Another point from Scripture:

Mark 12:41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. 43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything--all she had to live on."

Now where do we find in the Bible that He made the little widow woman rich? Bingo! We don't!

Concerning the salvation that Zac experienced, well, it's possible that he was still feeling bad about the wicked lifestyle he lived before repenting under John's ministry and Jesus assured him that he was still a child of Abraham, though the religious community still rejected him. I think the parable that Luke records in chapter 18, is related to this also.

We're told in the story of Zaccheus that Jesus said the following:

Luke 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. (KJV)

I see nothing here about being rich!

[Sherman]

Good morning nebula,

I was simply pointing out a possible (I believe likely) different understanding of the story of Zacchaeus. Both my understanding and the traditional understanding of the passage are viable and meaningful.

To arrive at the likely interpretation, one should consider as much of the context as possible including (but not limited to) the tense of Zac's reply (present, not future), the immediate context, and the extended context. I agree that the immediate context of the passage would lead one to understand the passage the way you interpret it, even though Zac's actual reply is in the present tense instead of the future tense.

But imo if one takes into consideration the tense of Zac's reply and the extended literary context of the book of Luke, in the light of these I understand the passage the way I shared.

Concerning the word salvation, many Christians struggle with guilt and condemnation though Jesus was sacrificed for us. How much more could someone under the old covenant struggle with receiving the forgiveness of God and overcoming guilt and condemnation, especially if they were in a profession that was dispised by all of the "religious" people.

Well, I'm wore out discussing this and see no end to the debate, only us going in circles. So I'll gracefully bow out and concede that your interpretation is a viable interpretation, though I still understand it differently. It wouldn't suprise me if when the Lord returns we find out that we both missed the point of this story and uncovering all the Good the Lord has for us in it.

Sincerely,

[nebula]

Good morning nebula,

I was simply pointing out a possible (I believe likely) different understanding of the story of Zacchaeus. Both my understanding and the traditional understanding of the passage are viable and meaningful.

I disagree with you on that.

The event could not have happened two different ways. It was only one.

By using present tense, Zacchaeus was making a much more binding declaration than the future tense conveys.

Besides, you leave an inconsistency in your interpretation:

if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.

Now, if he had repented and changed already, why would he say, "if I have taken any thing . . . I restore"? If his repentance had already taken place, he would have said, "I have resotored." If he was already living this out, then the present tense indicates that he still takes things by false accusation and then restores. This scenario does not make sense.

So again, I cannot agree with you on this, either.