October 30, 2016-Proper 26 (Twenty-Fourth Sunday after Pentecost)

 For All Saints’ Day, see my commentary for October 30, 2016 or November 6, 2016.

The preacher who wants to tie these readings together with the Gospel, the story of Zacchaeus’ encounter with Jesus, might consider one or more of these themes:

 “Salvation” for the “lost”: e.g., Habakkuk’s Judeans, Israelites for whom the psalmist speaks, the persecuted and afflicted 2nd or 3rd generation Pauline community, and Zacchaeus, who is considered a “sinner” because he is a chief tax collector.

 God’s special care for the “insignificant and despised”: Psa 119.141a, which could also describe little Judah under foreign imperial rule and “little” Zacchaeus, a despised chief tax collector.

Faithfulness to God’s just/justice decrees: the “righteous” who live by trusting in the faithfulness of God’s justice and God’s vision of justice (Hab 2.1-4), the psalmist who is faithful to God’s just decrees and precepts (Psa 119.137-144), the Pauline community steadfast in faith and love in the face of adversity (2 Thess 1.3-4), and the wealthy chief tax collector who is extravagant in doing the right and just thing (Lk 19.8).

(Unless otherwise noted, biblical quotations are adapted from the NRSV.)

Habakkuk 1:1-4 & 2: 1-4

The first part of this reading identifies the book’s central issue: the difficulty of “maintaining belief in God’s just rule in spite of an unjust world” (Theodore Hiebert, “The Book of Habakkuk,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, edited by Leander E. Keck [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996], 7.624). The widespread injustice in Jerusalem, the heart of Judah, shakes his confidence in God’s justice to the core. This is the classic “problem of evil”: “If God is really God—in control of the world—God cannot be good or just and also allow injustice and suffering to exist and to endure. If God is really good and just, God cannot be in control of such a corrupt world” (Hiebert 7.633).

As we will see (2.1-4), this prophet resolves the problem by envisioning the demonstration of God’s justice in “the end.” In that way, the prophet maintains belief in God’s control of the world and God’s goodness and justice. For classical atheists and process theologians, however, an all-controlling God who allows human injustice and suffering would be an immoral God. Whereas atheists think that, by denying the existence of this fictional God, they have defeated any belief in the existence of God, process theologians celebrate the death of such a God, who in reality never existed, but they believe in a God who influences the world, without controlling it, and is the source of the vision of the creative transformation of this unjust world. In the tradition shaped by Jesus, this is the vision of God’s rule “on earth as in heaven.” [See

David Ray Griffin, God Exists But Gawd Does Not: From Evil to New Atheism to Fine-Tuning (Anoka MN: Process Century Press, 2016).]

In 2.1-4, we see the prophet stationed on the city wall, looking out for God’s arrival with an answer to his challenging questions in 1.1-4. God suddenly arrives and urges the prophet to “wait” for a “vision” concerning “the end,” which “does not lie,” and which, though it might “seem to tarry, … will surely come” (2.1-3). The apparent message of this “vision of the end” is an implied warning to the “proud,” that they will not survive “the end,” but a promise to the “righteous,” that they will survive “by their faith [or faithfulness]” (v. 4).

“The end” is an eschatological reference to the end of this age, when God’s final judgment will occur, bringing an end to the “violence,” “wrongdoing,” “destruction,” “strife and contention,” and the “wicked surrounding the righteous” (1.1-4; also see 3.16-19). In other words, it is when God will demonstrate that God is righteous and just, and not indifferent to “wrongdoing.” [Compare Rom 3.21-26.]

What is the antecedent of the masculine singular pronoun, which the NRSV renders with a plural, in order to bring out the gender-inclusive scope of the text (“by their faith [or faithfulness]”)? Is it “the righteous,” who will survive “because of their faith”? Is it the “vision” that “does not lie,” so that the righteous will survive because of the faithfulness of the vision? Or is it God, whose faithfulness guarantees that the righteous will survive? See 3.18-19a: “yet I will rejoice in the LORD; I will exult in the God of my salvation. GOD, the Lord, is my strength…”!

What does the Hebrew word ’emunah, traditionally translated “faith,” mean in this context? If the pronoun’s antecedent is God, the Hebrew word must mean “faithfulness,” not “faith”! If the pronoun’s antecedent is the vision, the Hebrew word could refer to its faithfulness (it “does not lie”) or to the “faith of the vision,” that is, the “faith” that is the central message of the vision. Again, it could be God’s faithfulness or the “faith” expected of and attributed to the righteous, in contrast to the arrogant pride of the wicked.

In the latter case, we would still have to define what “their faith” is. In this context, it could refer to trust in God to execute justice: If God’s justice “seems to tarry, wait for it; it will surely come, it will not delay” (2.3). Such “faith” would be a grand “Nevertheless!” With eyes wide open to the violence and all manner of “wrongdoing” in the world, the prophet says that the “righteous” live by trusting in God’s trustworthiness to do justice! Moreover, because the “righteous” trust in God’s trustworthiness to do justice, they remain faithful to God’s law even when they are surrounded by the “wicked” (1.4). “Habakkuk is directed to maintain a faithful commitment to God’s justice and to persist in its principles, even when such justice appears to be absent in the world around him” (Hiebert 642).

Finally, there is one more translation issue: In the Hebrew version of 2.4, a masculine singular pronoun modifies the noun “faith or faithfulness” (see above). So does the Dead Sea Scrolls, Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab 7.17), which refers to the faithfulness of “the Righteous One,” namely, the community’s Teacher. Manuscripts of the Greek version (the Septuagint, “the LXX”) have a first person singular pronoun. One reading has “my righteous one,” which would refer either to God’s righteous people or to God’s promised Messiah. Another reading has or “my faithfulness,” which would refer to the Judean who lives by God’s faithfulness. [In the New Testament versions of Hab 2.4, Rom 1.17 and Gal 3.11 have no pronoun. The manuscripts of Heb 10.38 reflect the same variations that we see in the LXX, with and without the first person singular pronoun.]

Psalm 119:137-144

I have provided two translations below, so that you can see some of the main translation issues and, if you wish, pursue them yourself. I will limit my comments to links with the Habakkuk reading. On the left is the NRSV. On the right is my own (compare the NIV, NAB, NET, and CEB).

137	You are righteous, O LORD, and your judgments are right.	You are just, O LORD, and your judgments are fair.
138	You have appointed your decrees in righteousness and in all faithfulness.	You have handed down your decrees with justice and with absolute faithfulness.
139	My zeal consumes me because my foes forget your words.	Anger consumes me, because my enemies have forgotten what you have said.
140	Your promise is well tried, and your servant loves it.	Your promise has been thoroughly tested, and your servant loves it.
141	I am small and despised, yet I do not forget your precepts.	I am insignificant and despised, yet I do not forget your precepts.
142	Your righteousness is an everlasting  righteousness, and your law is the truth.	Your justice is forever just, and your law is reliable.
143	Trouble and anguish have come upon me, but your commandments are my delight.	Stress and strain have caught up with me, but your commandments are my joy!
144	Your decrees are righteous forever; give me understanding  that I may live.	Your decrees are forever just. Help me understand, so that I can live!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like Habakkuk, the psalmist, under the stress and strain of injustice, nevertheless trusts that God is just and faithful. Even in adversity, in which God might seem to be unjust, the psalmist faithfully refuses to forget God’s precepts. Instead, that is when God’s commandments are a joy! Both Habakkuk and the psalmist yearn for “understanding” in a world that creates cognitive dissonance—experiences that threaten their fundamental belief that God is just and faithful. Habakkuk asks for a vision of divine justice that, at “the end,” ends all injustice. This hope for social, political, and economic justice is missing in today’s selection from Psalm 119. Moreover, this selection seems to end without satisfying the psalmist’s plea for “understanding.” In the very next verse (v. 145), the psalmist repeats the plea: “With my whole heart I cry; answer me, O LORD!” Persecutors and adversaries remain everywhere (vv. 150-61). And yet, throughout this psalm, the psalmist’s hope rests on God’s word, the Torah, which is both promise and law. (In the psalms, 25 of the 35 uses of the word “law,” 26 of the 35 uses of “decree,” 21 of the 23 uses of “precept,” 23 of the 31 uses of “statute,” and 25 of the 27 uses of “commandment” are in Psalm 119!)

2 Thessalonians 1:1-4 & 11-12

As in the selections from Habakkuk and Psalm 119, this selection focuses on “steadfastness and faith” in the midst of “persecutions and the afflictions” (v. 4). The writer assumes that “steadfastness and faith” enables persons to persevere during “persecutions and the afflictions.” They not only have “faith,” but it is growing stronger in the face of adversity (v. 3)! Furthermore, in adversity they have not lost their love for one another; on the contrary, the love that they all have for one another “is increasing” (v. 3)! All of this is due to the enabling “grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ” (vv. 11-12).

Absent, at least in these verses, is any notion that God controls the world. Persecutions and afflictions happen. God does not “intervene” in the course of human events by taking control of what happens. Absent, at least here, is Habakkuk’s vision of an omnipotent God who single-handedly ends all injustice. Rather, God “intervenes” as the object of “faith” and the source of love for one another.

Also absent is the accent in the selections from Habakkuk and Psalm 119 on faithfully living in obedience to God’s justice contained in the Torah. Instead, the accent in this selection from 2 Thessalonians is on endurance and perseverance in the midst of adversity. There is some measure of merit in that, especially if there is no hope that the situation will change. The danger, however, is that sufferers might think that Bible tells them to accept their suffering. “Steadfastness and faith” are not about passive acceptance of suffering. They are about resisting those who persecute and harass by having faithful trust in the ultimate source of hope—God and Jesus Christ—and by communal solidarity and loving care for one another.

Luke 19:1-10

The preacher who wants to tie the other readings together with this story of Zacchaeus’ encounter with Jesus might consider one or more of these themes:

 “Salvation” for the “lost”: e.g., Habakkuk’s Judeans, Israelites for whom the psalmist speaks, the persecuted and afflicted 2nd or 3rd generation Pauline community, and Zacchaeus, who is considered a “sinner” because he is a chief tax collector.

God’s special care for the “insignificant and despised”: Psa 119.141a, which could also describe little Judah under foreign imperial rule and “little” Zacchaeus, a despised chief tax collector.

Faithfulness to God’s just/justice decrees: the “righteous” who live by trusting in the faithfulness of God’s justice and God’s vision of justice (Hab 2.1-4), the psalmist who is faithful to God’s just decrees and precepts (Psa 119.137-144), the Pauline community steadfast in faith and love in the face of adversity (2 Thess 1.3-4), and the wealthy chief tax collector who is extravagant in doing the right and just thing (Lk 19.8).

For those of you who are interested in the many difficulties that translators face in this story, below is my translation and my comments on the issues. ¹ Then, although Jesus entered Jericho, he only intended to pass through it. ² Also, of all things, there was a chief tax collector, named Zacchaeus—not only that, he was wealthy! ³ Zacchaeus was trying to see who Jesus was, and yet he couldn’t, due to the crowd, because he was a short man. ⁴ So, after he ran on ahead, he climbed up on a sycamore-fig tree, so he could see him, because Jesus was about to pass through that part of town. ⁵ Then, when he came to that place, Jesus, as he looked up, said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down quickly, for today I must stay at your house.” ⁶ So he came down quickly and gladly welcomed Jesus as his guest. ⁷ Then, because they were looking, all the onlookers started grumbling, saying “He has gone in to stay overnight in the house of a sinful man!” ⁸ But Zacchaeus stopped in his tracks and said to the Lord, “Look, Master, it is my custom and habit to give half of my possessions to the poor; and, if I have extorted anything from anyone, it is my custom and habit to give back four times as much!”  ⁹ Then Jesus said to him, “Today, salvation has come to Zacchaeus’ household, because he too is a descendant of Abraham. ¹⁰ For the Son of Man came to look for and to save the lost.”

Verse 1: “Then, although Jesus entered Jericho, he only intended to pass through it.” The Greek has a participle εἰσελθὼν (eiselthōn) and a main verb διήρχετο (diērcheto). All translation render both as finite verbs (e.g., “Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through it”). That side-steps the task of determining the logical relationship between these two actions. In addition, we need to consider the use of the imperfect with the main verb. It could simply express a continuous past act (“he was passing through”), but in this context it seems better to interpret it as expressing an act intended and in progress but not completed (e.g., see the NAB: “and intended to pass through the town”). Jesus’ encounter with Zacchaeus necessitates a change of plans (see my comment on v. 5)!

For the participle, one alternative is to translate it as expressing an act completed prior to or at the same time as the main verb: “After or As he entered Jericho, Jesus intended to pass through it.” Pressing for more logical clarity, we could translate it as expressing an act that, in a sense, conflicts with the action of the main verb: “Although he entered Jericho, Jesus intended to pass through it.” The concessive participle and the voluntative imperfect set the stage for the story: In spite of entering Jericho, Jesus did not intend to stay overnight there; rather, he intended only to pass through the town.

Verse 2: “Also, of all things, there was a chief tax collector, named Zacchaeus—not only that, he was wealthy!” The Greek begins with an emphatic call to attention, ἰδοὺ (idou): “Look!” Or, in more contemporary idiom, “What do you know!” or “Of all things!” It announces the appearance of a character who startles the audience. How will a chief tax collector and Jesus interact? “This is the one place in the NT the office of chief tax collector is noted. He would organize the other tax collectors and collect healthy commissions” (NET note 4sn). Besides, this character is wealthy: Is this another occasion when Jesus will condemn the rich? We are set to hear about a confrontation! Let’s see if our expectations are right.

Verse 3: “Zacchaeus was trying to see who Jesus was, and yet he couldn’t due to the crowd, because he was a short man.” This is not just about getting “a look at” Jesus (NET); rather, this echoes two earlier themes in Luke. First, like the blind beggar near Jericho whose eyesight was restored by Jesus in the immediately preceding pericope (18.35-43), Zacchaeus seeks to see who Jesus was but is unable to do so. If only he could overcome the handicap of his small stature, he would be able see Jesus and learn who he was. Second, Zacchaeus’ desire to know who Jesus was echoes the question Jesus put to the disciples about who they think he was (9.18-22).

Verse 5: “Then, when he came to that place, Jesus, as he looked up, said to him, ‘Zacchaeus, come down quickly, for today I must stay at your house.” I have translated the first Greek participle, ἀναβλέψας (anablepsas), as expressing an act occurring at the same time as the main verb (“he said”). We are not supposed to imagine that Jesus walked along looking up at the tree looking for Zacchaeus. Rather, the narrator had to have Jesus look up in order to speak to him. I have translated the second participle, σπεύσας (speusas), as expressing the manner of the main verb: “come down quickly” (likewise in v. 6, which has the same participle of manner, plus a second one, χαίρων, chairōn, “gladly”). Jesus’ request and Zacchaeus’ response (v. 6) imply mutual approval, if not affection, between two strangers.

Jesus’ request for lodging in Zacchaeus’ house (compare v. 7) is a necessity: δεῖ με (dei me), “it is necessary for me” or “I must,” is a common phrase that expresses something for which God “destined” Jesus. Lodging as a guest in a wealthy chief tax collector’s house is a “necessity” in service of a more important “destiny” (see v. 9)!

Verse 7: “Then, because they were looking, all the onlookers started grumbling, saying ‘He has gone in to stay overnight in the house of a sinful man!’” The Greek has a participle ἰδόντες (idontes) that expresses an act either before or at the same time as the action of the main verb (“when or after they saw, all the onlookers started grumbling”), or the cause of the action of the main verb (“because they were looking, all the onlookers started grumbling”). The imperfect tense of the main verb is used here to express the onset of a continuous act (compare the NRSV: “All who saw it began to grumble…”). The phrase “he has gone in to stay overnight in the house of…” echoes v. 5: Jesus entered Zacchaeus’ house for the purpose of staying overnight (compare 5.31-32; 7.37-50, and 15.1-2). Although he intended only to pass through town, Jesus changed plans, in order to fulfill his “destiny”!

Verse 8: “But Zacchaeus stopped in his tracks and said to the Lord, ‘Look, Master, it is my custom and habit to give half of my possessions to the poor; and, if I have extorted anything from anyone, it is my custom and habit to give back four times as much!’” The Greek has a participle, σταθεὶς (statheis), which, in this case, we can translate the way most translations handle adverbial participles, namely, as expressing an act closely coordinated with the action of the main verb: “he stood up and said.” In Greek, this combination introduces a speech, which is delivered while standing. The implication is that Zacchaeus and Jesus had been sitting inside the house, so that Zacchaeus stood up in order to say something. On the other hand, the NET and CEB translation of the participle as “Zacchaeus stopped” implies something like Zacchaeus stopped moving (“in his tracks”) in order to say something. The implication, together with the Zacchaeus and Jesus’ retorts to the onlookers, is that the scene is set as Zacchaeus and Jesus began to enter the house (see v. 7: “he has gone in…”).

The first mention of “the Lord” expresses the narrator’s pious belief about Jesus. If Zacchaeus also addresses Jesus as “Lord” (vocative κύριε, kyrie), it would imply that he had learned “who Jesus was” from having seen him (vv. 3-6). In other words, he had become a follower of Jesus. However, nothing else in the story indicates that we are supposed to think of Zacchaeus as someone who joined the Jesus movement. On the other hand, it would be consistent with the rest of the narrative for Zacchaeus to address Jesus as his superior, “Master.” Jesus issues a request, adding “Hop to it!” And Zacchaeus hops to it! Here, Zacchaeus defends himself to his honored guest (“Master”) against the grumbling onlookers.

Here, ἰδοὺ (idou) calls attention to the quality of evidence in Zacchaeus’ defense of his honor. His self-defense has two parts. The first has to do with his extravagant generosity: unlike the rich ruler who would not sell any of his possession and give the proceeds to the poor (18.18- 25), Zacchaeus gives half of his possessions to the poor. The second has to do with his fulfillment of the legal obligation to compensate those he had cheated: fourfold is what Roman law as well as the Torah call for (see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke, Anchor Bible 28A [Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1985], 1225; and François Bovon, Luke 2 [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013], 599).

The crux of the problem in v. 8, however, is the interpretation and translation of the present tense verbs, δίδωμι (didōmi: “give”) and ἀποδίδωμι (apodidōmi: “give back”). In the absence of any expression of remorse, a request for Jesus’ (“the Lord’s”) mercy, and Jesus’ declaration of forgiveness, there is little reason to suppose that we are to think of Zacchaeus as a paradigm of penitent repentance, who, on the spot and without any prompting from Jesus, turns his life around. But that is what is implied by the translations that render these verbs as futuristic uses of the present tense for actions about to commence immediately: “I will give … I will pay back …” (NRSV and NAB) and “I now give …” (NIV, although it has “I will pay back”; compare the NET and see its note 21sn). The other option is to render these present tense verbs as expressing Zacchaeus’ customary actions, his established habits of behavior. That is what is implied by translating these verbs as “I give … I restore …” (KJV and RSV) or “I give … I repay” (CEB). The latter is consistent with a factual statement of self-defense—not, however, a self-justification or a statement of “self-righteousness” or “salvation by works,” which no doubt is a theological bias in translations that reject the customary or habitual use of the present tense here. See further comments on this issue under v. 9.

Finally, we have to say something about the nature of the conditional statement at the end of v. 8. The tendency is to think “if” means “since.” But that converts a condition into a statement of fact, thereby erasing the note of contingency. The Greek form of this condition entails an assumption of its truth for the sake of argument (“Suppose I …”). That would be close to making Zacchaeus admit to having engaged in extortion, at least once. It would be equivalent to saying, “Whenever I am found to have defrauded anyone of anything, it is my custom and my habit to give back four times as much.” This is Zacchaeus’ second defense of his honor.

Verse 9: “Then Jesus said to him, ‘Today salvation has come to this household, because he also is a descendant of Abraham.’” First, notice the repetition of “today” in v. 5. In v. 9 we learn the ultimate reason for Jesus’ “destiny” to lodge in this house.

Second, Jesus’ pronouncement of salvation for this household is based on Zacchaeus’ Abrahamic ancestry, not on his “good works” (v. 8). On the one hand, Luke’s John the Baptist denounces those who think they have no need to prove their repentance with deeds and declares, “God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham” (3.8)! On the other hand, Luke makes it clear from the start that Jesus’ “destiny” is to fulfill God’s promise to “Abraham and his descendants forever” (1.46-55 and 67-79; compare 13.10-17).

Third, although Jesus speaks to Zacchaeus (“Jesus said to him”), he addresses him in the third person (“on this household … he also …”). This could be due to a secondary layer of tradition; however, an earlier story would be incomplete without something like this saying. Perhaps we should translate πρὸς αὐτὸν (pros auton), not “to him,” but “with reference to him” (BDAG πρός 3,e,α). In other words, Jesus addresses his pronouncement to the grumbling onlookers in v. 7, just as Zacchaeus directs his self-defense to them as well as to Jesus (v. 8). In fact, some interpreters propose that originally v. 9 followed v. 7 and someone, either the author of Luke or of “Special L” (one of this Gospel’s sources), added v. 8 in order to demonstrate Zacchaeus had listened to John the Baptist (3.12). Be that as it may, the present text makes sense: First Zacchaeus responds to the grumbling (v. 8), then Jesus responds (v. 9). In tandem, they rebut the accusation that Zacchaeus is a “sinner” (v. 7).

Verse 10: “For the Son of Man came to look for and to save the lost.” The status of “the lost” is a social construct. Society’s elites decide who they are. Jesus condemns such constructs. Jesus’ declaration about Zacchaeus (v. 9) and its reason (v. 10) could not be more radical! Even though, as an agent of the Roman Empire’s tax system, he is a collaborator with the Romans, he remains one of God’s beloved descendants of Abraham. Jesus’ “destiny”—mission—is to proclaim the salvation of all God’s beloved people, including those who seem to be “lost” (compare 5.31-32; ch. 15; and Ezek 34.15-16).

David J. Lull, an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church and Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Wartburg Theological Seminary, is a resident of Pilgrim Place in Claremont, CA. He also taught New Testament at Yale University Divinity School, was the Executive Director of the Society of Biblical Literature, and was the director of the Bible Translation and Utilization unit of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. His publications include Chalice Press Commentaries for Today on Romans (with John B. Cobb, Jr.) and 1 Corinthians (with William A. Beardslee); The Spirit in Galatia (reprinted by Wipf & Stock); and, with William A. Beardslee, John B. Cobb, Jr., and others, Biblical Preaching on the Death of Jesus (reprinted by Wipf & Stock). In 2010, he published a major review essay covering more than a dozen books on “Paul and Empire” (Religious Studies Review 36/4: 251-62).