Reading and Mis-Reading Zacchaeus

Dominant traditions of interpretation 

Luke 19:1–27, a single scene in Luke’s Gospel, is often read as if the ‘story of Zacchaeus’ ended with verse 10 and the ‘parable of the pounds’ (19:11–27) did not address the people to whom, and the context in which, Jesus first told it. We consider, in turn, how these texts are often read and experienced in congregational and in scholarly contexts.  

Meeting Zacchaeus and hearing the parable in Sunday school and church 

Whether you grew up in Sunday school or encountered these stories later in life, your experiences may be similar to my own. In Sunday school, our teachers taught the story of Zacchaeus as a moralistic tale about befriending unpopular children and sharing treats. In church, preachers expounded it to extoll the grace of God and encourage congregants to seek Jesus, befriend marginalised people regardless of physical appearance and employment status, and practice generosity. In effect, our preachers assured us that Zacchaeus was proof that, despite Jesus’ teaching after meeting a rich ruler (18:18–30), the rich can be saved without giving everything away.   

What about the parable Jesus told in Jericho? When speaking of Zacchaeus, it was never mentioned.   

I must have read and studied Luke 19:11–27 myself but have no recollection of so doing. In church, it was occasionally used alongside the somewhat similar ‘parable of the talents’ (Matt 25:1–30) to support wealth creation and stewardship teaching, thoroughly allegorising both parables in the process. The nobleman/master/king represented God or Jesus, as did more powerful characters in other parables. The first two ‘servants’ were diligent, the third indolent or cowardly. The fate of the rebellious citizens illustrated ‘end time tribulations’ to be visited upon all who resist God’s rule. Until Jesus returns, we should use the resources ‘with which God has blessed us’ and the opportunities ‘God brings our way’ responsibly: tithing 10% before saving and investing to provide for our families, prepare for retirement, and insure against future misfortune. In none of this was the parable associated with Zacchaeus, Luke’s wider narrative, Jericho, Passover, tribute, or other social, economic, and political realities of the first century world. 

These readings of Zacchaeus and the parable told in Jericho merge seamlessly with the aspiration of middle-class Australia, bolstering an ethic of individual wealth acquisition tempered by charity and tithing. Any call for transformation is limited to individual and personal change, readily accommodated within existing economic and political arrangements. 

Zacchaeus and the parable in the academy 

The story of Zacchaeus features prominently in academic Lukan studies. Scholars identify Luke 19:1–10 as ‘the climax of Jesus’ ministry,’ ‘the essence of the entire Gospel,’ ‘a retrospective summary of Jesus’ saving work,’ ‘a paradigm for hospitality in Luke’, or a call ‘to practise Jubilee in everyday life.’ The question of whether Zacchaeus repents or is vindicated by Jesus preoccupies many scholars. The debate hinges on a grammatical ambiguity in Zacchaeus’s speech (19:8): ‘Look, Lord! Half my possessions I give to the poor and if I have defrauded anybody of anything I pay back four times.’ Does Zacchaeus speak of his intended (future) actions or established (past, present, and future) practice? The conclusions drawn by scholars on either side of the debate align with their prior doctrinal convictions, assumptions about the theology and purpose of Luke-Acts, and sense of what ‘seems obvious’ or ‘feels natural.’ The question itself arises from broader anxieties about whether and how the rich can be saved and a religio-cultural emphasis on personal repentance and salvation.  

Until recently, extreme scepticism about the historical reliability of the Gospels prevailed in some scholarly circles. Those who attributed the parable to the Early Church, rather than to Jesus, were disinclined to hear it as related by Luke. As a result, many published studies detach the parable from its historical and narrative contexts, interpret its so-called economic and political ‘plot lines’ or ‘strands’ separately, conflate it with the somewhat similar parable of Matthew 25:14–30, and/or surmise that it addresses ‘the problem’ of the allegedly ‘delayed return of Christ.’

Readers, scholarly or lay, who approach the parable as an ‘earthly story with a heavenly meaning’ read it allegorically with the dominant character representing God or Jesus. This allegorical identification leaves readers unable to question the nobleman/sovereign’s right to rule or the economic and political practices from which he profits and that he appears to demand. Many scholars cling to this allegorical reading despite noting a range of difficulties, including the contrast between the nobleman/sovereign’s conduct and aspirations and those elsewhere affirmed by Jesus. Some suggest that the slave-owner/sovereign represents God or Jesus in an ironic, parodic way. 

Such allegorical readings of Luke 19:11–27 inevitably reduce things with concrete significance in the worlds behind the text (slaves and slave-owners; sovereigns and realms; money, turning a profit and interest; political dissidents and their slaughter) to metaphors or allegories for other things. Once allegorised, the parable is left with nothing to say about the political, economic, and social arrangements of first century Palestine, or about somewhat analogous arrangements in the worlds of its subsequent audiences. Yet, most of the parables told by the Old Testament prophets indicted Israel’s rulers, their retainers and/or wealthiest people whose regimes exploited, oppressed, and dispossessed others. It would, then, be strange indeed if the parables of Jesus, a prophet of Israel, did not challenge the idolatrous political, economic, and social injustices of his day. 

Alternative traditions of interpretation 

I stumbled into an alternative interpretive tradition when invited to preach on Luke 19:1–10, a lectionary reading for the day. Initially uninspired, I put all my previous encounters with Zacchaeus aside and sat down to read Luke from the beginning as if for the first time. Imagining myself into the story, I watched the encounter between Jesus and Zacchaeus as if one of the crowd and heard the parable as if among those to whom Jesus first told it. For the first time, I realised that Luke 19:1–10 and 12–27 are not separate, self-contained episodes, noticed how intimately 19:1–27 connects with Luke’s wider narrative, and felt echoes of Scripture reverberate through the text. Reading that way, I met a very different Zacchaeus and heard an infinitely more challenging parable. 

Zacchaeus is a ruling tribute collector based in Herodian Jericho, a city with a complex history, under Roman rule. The human consequences of the fundamentally exploitative and oppressive system within which he operates preclude any possibility that Jesus vindicates the ruling tribute collector. No wonder ‘all who saw it were muttering, saying that he had gone in to stay with a sinful man’ (19:7). Zacchaeus’s declaration (19:8) aligns with John’s description of ‘fruit worthy of repentance’ (3:8–14). Jesus’ response (19:9–10) raises high expectations, the horizons of which extend far beyond personal repentance and salvation. Jesus speaks of his own identity and vocation using imagery drawn from a prophetic oracle (Ezek 34) that envisages salvation in economic, political, social, and ecological terms, a salvation that involves the demise of arrangements through which the ‘strong’ and the ‘fat’ devour and plunder, ravage, and push aside the ‘thin’ and the ‘weak.’ 

A growing minority of readers approach the parable of Luke 19:11–27 as a realistic story without assuming that its dominant character represents God or Jesus. They observe striking  parallels between the character and conduct of the nobleman/sovereign and Jewish vassal kings (the Herods), and stark contrasts between the nobleman/sovereign and Jesus. They applaud the noncompliant slave who speaks truth to power and refuses to participate in processes that give more to those who already have and take up from those who have not the little they might otherwise retain.  Heard this way, the parable exposes the false claims and unjust conduct of human rulers, challenges oppressive social, economic, and political arrangements, and calls for change. Its realism and challenge only deepen when heard within the multidimensional (canonical, historical, narrative, communicative, geographic, political, economic, temporal) context in which, according to Luke, it was first told.  

What next?  

Future Manna Matters will publish four further articles on Luke 19:1 –27. These will  (i) explore the interrelated and mutually reinforcing economic, social, political, and military dimensions of the world in which Jesus meets Zacchaeus; (ii) and (iii) share more detailed readings of Luke 19:1–10 and 11–27; and (iv) considers how Luke 19:1–27 might challenge Australian Christians to respond to the pressing challenges confronting our world.  

Some general observations and a suggestion 

Reading or listening to the Gospel of Luke is a cross-cultural experience. It was probably written between 75 and 90 CE, not long after Roman legions killed, raped, and enslaved hundreds of thousands of Jews and destroyed Jerusalem and its temple. Its author/s and earliest audiences shared many life experiences and assumptions of which we are ignorant and others we find foreign and strange. The more carefully we ‘mind the gap’ between our world and theirs, the more responsibly we can read and respond. We would be wise, for example, to ‘mind the gap’ between the functions and purposes of taxation in participatory democracies and those of tribute under Roman rule.  

The Gospel of Luke was written to be experienced as a story read out loud, recited from memory, or dramatically performed to group audiences. As with other well-crafted narratives, it invites us to lose ourselves in the story. The (anonymous) storyteller was a person or persons of faith who wrote for communities of faith. They composed ‘an orderly account of the things that have been fulfilled among us’ in order to persuade others more fully of ‘the significance’ of what they already believed (1:1, 4).  The inscription ‘According to Luke’ was added after the written text had circulated widely for a hundred years or more. As a matter of convenience, we now refer to the ‘Gospel according to Luke’ and call the storyteller ‘Luke.’ 

As a first step toward deeper engagement, why not take two to three hours to listen to the Gospel from the beginning until Jesus leaves Jericho and goes on ahead up to Jerusalem? Set aside all your previous experiences with Luke’s Gospel and listen as if hearing it for the first time. Imagining yourself into the story, how do you feel when Jesus approaches Zacchaeus and Zacchaeus welcomes him with joy? Hearing the parable as if among the crowd listening to Jesus, with which character/s do you instinctively empathise?  

Step out of the story to consider two more analytical questions. How do the parable and the preceding public conversation relate? How might we enrich our engagement with this scene by attending to its contexts: canonical (with the Scriptures of Israel), historical (Palestine under Roman and Herodian rule), geographical (Jericho) and temporal (approaching Passover)? These are questions to which we shall return. 

Deborah Storie completed her doctoral thesis, An Adventure with Zacchaeus, in 2016. She lectures in New Testament at Whitley College, is Senior Pastor at East Doncaster Baptist Church, and an Honorary Research Associate with the University of Divinity.