§47 Two Men of Faith (Luke 18:35–19:10)
This section includes the healing of the blind man at Jericho (18:35–43) and Jesus’ encounter with Zacchaeus (19:1–10). In both passages we see individual men responding to Jesus in faith.
18:35–43 / Luke’s account of the healing of the blind man at Jericho is taken from Mark 10:46–52. In the Marcan account the blind man is named “Bartimaeus” (10:46; Bartimaeus=son of Timaeus). In the Matthean version of the story, however, reference is made to two blind men (Matt. 20:29–34; cf. also Matt. 9:27–31). (Matthew’s interest in pairs probably accounts for mentioning the two men; see Gundry, p. 405; see also Matt. 8:28–34; 21:1–7.) Another interesting difference is that in Mark 10:46 Jesus is apparently leaving Jericho (so also Matt. 20:29), but in Luke 18:35 Jesus is approaching Jericho. The reason that Luke wants to leave the impression that Jesus is not leaving Jericho when he heals the blind man is to accommodate the Zacchaeus episode that follows (19:1–10), which also takes place in Jericho. Jesus could hardly be in the process of leaving Jericho when he heals the blind man and then be back in Jericho again when he meets Zacchaeus.
Luke elects to omit the blind man’s name, although he does describe him as a beggar. (That he is Bartimaeus of the Marcan story is beyond all doubt.) In v. 36 Luke tells us that the blind man heard the crowd going by and so asked what was happening. (Mark 10:47 says only that Bartimaeus heard that Jesus was present.) It is then that the crowd informs him that Jesus of Nazareth is passing by. The blind man cries out to Jesus calling him the Son of David, a title which is surely messianic (see note below). Almost certainly the blind man has heard of Jesus’ fame and knows that in him there is hope. Hence he cries out, have mercy on me. The crowd, however, viewed this outburst as an impertinence (or perhaps as dangerous) and so they rebuked him and told him to be quiet. Nevertheless, he continued to cry out. Here again is an instance of the familiar prejudice against some—like the blind man—who would have been viewed as disabled because of some sin (see John 9:2). Jesus has important things to do and cannot be bothered by such a person of no account, or so many in the crowd may have reasoned.
But Jesus stopped and ordered the man to be brought to him. Jesus did not share this prejudice but rather taught otherwise (see Luke 14:15–24; 18:9–14). He asks the blind man what he desires and he replies: Lord (probably meaning no more than “Sir,” but for Luke the word in this context should be “Lord,” since the blind man will be commended for his faith, faith that Luke probably understands as at least incipiently Christian), I want to see. Jesus then responds with the command: Receive your sight, adding by way of comment, your faith has healed you (see note below). The blind man was immediately healed, and Luke notes, as is his custom (see 2:13, 20; 5:26; 7:16; 9:43), that all the people … praised God.
19:1–10 / In the preceding episode we saw the healing touch of Jesus restoring the sight and faith of a religious outcast of Israel. In the episode at hand we have another example of the restoration of one who was an outcast, not because of physical problems thought to be caused by sin, but because of his occupation. While passing through Jericho, Jesus encounters a chief tax collector (see note below) named Zacchaeus, a man who was wealthy. His desire to see Jesus was such he climbed a nearby sycamore-fig tree (which surely would have been viewed as undignified for a man of means). To the astonishment of all, Jesus picked Zacchaeus out of the crowd as his host for the day. In response to this selection all the people begin to mutter, for in their eyes Jesus has chosen to be the guest of a sinner. It is usually assumed that at that very moment, or perhaps after dinner and conversation with Jesus, Zacchaeus stood up and spoke what is stated in v. 8: Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount. The NIV gives the impression that Zacchaeus has had a change of heart: no longer will he cheat people, no longer will he ignore the poor. This translation certainly reflects the traditional interpretation of this episode (which is followed by Marshall, pp. 694–99; Ellis, pp. 220–21; Tannehill, pp. 123–25). Seen in this light, the story of Zacchaeus is a story of conversion. The wealthy tax collector has seen the error of his ways (materialism, dishonesty, greed) and now has repented; and as evidence of his repentance he promises to give half of his wealth to the poor and much of what is left to those whom he has previously cheated.
The traditional interpretation, however, may not be correct. In the NIV the verb give is modified with here and now, words which are not found in the Greek text. This gives the impression that Zacchaeus’ statement will go into effect from the moment he spoke it. It is now understood as a present-tense statement of what has been Zacchaeus’ habit. Not only have extraneous words been added to the translation, the verb will pay back is not really a future at all; it is present tense. A more literal rendering of the verse is: “Behold, Lord, half of my wealth I give to the poor, and if I have ever cheated anyone I pay back four-fold.” Translated literally one is not necessarily left with the impression that Zacchaeus’ statement represents new behavior. Furthermore, there is no indication that Zacchaeus’ statement is to be understood as uttered after dinner and conversation with Jesus (Ellis, p. 221), during which time a conversion could have taken place. Moreover, there is no hint of Zacchaeus making a confession of sin (as in the case of fellow tax collector in 18:9–14). The more probable interpretation of v. 8 understands the statement of Zacchaeus as an immediate protest against the muttering crowd which disapproved of Jesus’ intention to dine with him and which had referred to the tax collector as a “sinner” (v. 7). In other words, Zacchaeus has responded to the sting of being called a sinner for no other reason than the mere fact of his occupation. He has protested, in effect, that whereas other tax collectors may cheat and gouge their fellow citizens he, Zacchaeus, regularly contributes to the poor and whenever he (accidentally) collects too much (not necessarily “cheated”), he always makes fourfold restitution. This interpretation seems to make the best sense of what is actually found in the Greek text (so Fitzmyer, pp. 1220–22).
In v. 9 Jesus pronounces that Zacchaeus is a true son of Abraham. The reason that he is such is because his actions of fairness (recall the Baptist’s advice to tax collectors in 3:12–13) point to a sincere heart, one that is ready to respond to the invitation to enter the kingdom of God. Because he is a son of Abraham, as is evidenced by his welcoming of Jesus, salvation has come to his house (even though it is the house of a despised tax collector). Here again we see Jesus in the role of champion of the outcast and of those who are maligned because of unwarranted assumptions and religious hypocrisy.
Jesus’ saying in v. 10 does not merely summarize the Zacchaeus episode but should be understood as a thematic statement that climaxes and concludes the journey narrative. (Fitzmyer [p. 1218] notes that Luke 19:10 recapitulates the whole of chap. 15.) Unlike many of his religious critics, Jesus does not condemn the lost, nor does he judge people according to outward appearances. Jesus calls all to repentance, religious and irreligious, healthy and sick, rich and poor.
18:35 / Jericho: See note on 10:30 above.
blind man: Mark 10:46 gives his name as “Bartimaeus” (i.e., the son of Timaeus). Some scholars have suggested that the name was inserted into Mark long after Luke (and Matthew) had used Mark as their source. That is unlikely, however. In view of the scribal tendency to harmonize the Synoptic Gospels, one may wonder why the name was not added to the Matthean and Lucan versions as well. It is more likely that, not seeing any relevance in the man’s name, both Luke and Matthew (who mentions two blind men instead of one) elected to drop it. Later in Mark’s account of the crucifixion, the evangelist notes parenthetically that Simon of Cyrene was the “father of Alexander and Rufus” (15:21). Again, Luke and Matthew see no significance in these personal names and so choose to omit them (Luke 23:26; Matt. 27:32). It is quite possible, if not probable, that these names were important in the evangelist Mark’s tradition (and in the case of the sons of Simon of Cyrene possibly known to him) and so were retained. When the evangelists Matthew and Luke later utilized Mark, these names were unknown to them and were of no importance and so were not retained.
18:37 / Jesus of Nazareth: Lit. “Jesus the Nazorean.” Mark 10:47 reads: “Jesus the Nazarene” (NIV: “Jesus of Nazareth”). The name of the city itself is found in the New Testament spelled either Nazaret or Nazara. Fitzmyer (pp. 1215–16) has suggested that the curious spelling in Luke may have arisen from an early attempt to relate Jesus’ place of origin (Nazareth) either to the OT idea of the Nazirite (from nāzîr, “consecrated one”; see Num. 6:2–3; Judg. 13:4–5), an idea with which Luke is familiar (see note on 1:15 above), or to the OT idea of the “Branch of David” (from nēṣer, “sprout,” “scion”; see Isa. 11:1), an idea with which Matthew (2:23) was apparently familiar.
18:38 / Son of David: That Jesus is a physical descendant of David has already been made clear to Luke’s readers in the genealogy (3:31), though I doubt if the evangelist thought that the characters in his story knew of it. The blind man’s knowledge of Jesus’ Davidic connection would stem from rumors of Jesus’ messianic status. That the designation “Son of David” is to be understood messianically is also apparent in 1:27, 31–33 (and see 2:4, 11). It is not necessary to conclude that the blind man supposed that Jesus was literally a descendant of David.
18:41 / Lord: Mark 10:51 reads instead, rabbouni, “My Master.” Luke’s substitution is due to his desire to avoid Semitic expressions which would not be easily understood by his predominantly Gentile readership.
18:42 / receive your sight: Tiede (p. 318) notes that in giving sight to the blind Jesus is performing his messianic task, as seen in Isa. 61:1 (Luke 4:18) and Isa. 35:5 (Luke 7:22).
your faith has healed you: Lit. “Your faith has saved you.” It is a common expression (see 5:20; 7:50; 8:48; 17:19).
18:43 / and followed Jesus: Luke has left out Mark’s “along the road” (10:52). The expression would have lent itself well to Luke’s travel theme that has run throughout the Central Section (9:51–19:10 [or 27]), but it is omitted because Luke wishes Jesus to remain in Jericho in order to meet Zacchaeus in 19:1–10.
19:1 / Jesus … was passing through: The reader is reminded that Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem is still under way. Jericho is only seventeen miles or so east of Jerusalem (see note on 10:30 above).
19:2 / chief tax collector: Fitzmyer (p. 469) prefers to use the title “toll collector,” since these people collect “indirect taxes (tolls, tariffs, imposts, and customs).” But for our purposes the traditional designation will serve. The chief tax collector was one who collected these tolls and tariffs and had several agents under his authority. “Since the [chief tax collector] usually had to pay the expected revenue to the Romans in advance and then seek to recoup the amount, plus expenses and profits, by assessing and collecting the tolls [or taxes], the system of toll-collecting was obviously open to abuse and dishonesty” (Fitzmyer, p. 470). Especially because of their relation to Gentile authorities, these tax collectors were despised by their fellow Jews. This is seen in their frequent association with all types of undesirable people: “tax collectors and sinners” (Matt. 9:10; 11:19; Luke 7:34); “pagan or a tax collector” (Matt. 18:17); “tax collectors and the prostitutes” (Matt. 21:31, 32); “robbers, evildoers, adulterers—even like this tax collector” (Luke 18:11). See also note on 3:12 above.
Zacchaeus: In later church tradition that can hardly be trusted, Zacchaeus becomes the bishop of Caesarea.
wealthy: That is, wealthy from his occupation; hence, all the more reason that his neighbors despised and resented him.
19:5 / Because Jesus addresses Zacchaeus by name, we may wonder if Jesus’ knowledge is supposed to be supernatural. As the story stands, however, we cannot be sure.
19:6 / welcomed him gladly: Note the contrast between Zacchaeus and the rich young man in 18:23. Zacchaeus is an example of a rich man whose wealth does not prevent him from entering the kingdom. See Tiede, pp. 320–21.
19:7 / mutter: The same word describes the Pharisees’ reaction in 15:2.
sinner: See note on 5:30 above.
19:8 / Lord: For Zacchaeus “lord” probably meant no more than “sir,” but for Luke and his community it may have been understood as “Lord” (see 5:12).
four times the amount: Zacchaeus apparently applied the law of restitution for theft (see Exod. 22:1: “… four sheep for the sheep”).
19:9 / son of Abraham: I.e., a true child of God. Although this was a common designation for a Jew (m. Aboth 5.19), Paul uses the expression of Christians (Gal. 3:29).
19:10 / Son of Man: See note on 5:24 above.
to seek and to save what was lost: Note Ezek. 34:16: “I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed …” (RSV); the prophet likens Israel to sheep (cf. 34:2, 11; Luke 15:3–7).