Deuteronomy 30:11-20

Exhortation to Choose Life

11 Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?” 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?” 14 No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe.

15 See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity. 16 If you obey the commandments of the LORD your God that I am commanding you today, by loving the LORD your God, walking in his ways, and observing his commandments, decrees, and ordinances, then you shall live and become numerous, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to possess. 17 But if your heart turns away and you do not hear, but are led astray to bow down to other gods and serve them, 18 I declare to you today that you shall perish; you shall not live long in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. 19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live, 20 loving the LORD your God, obeying him, and holding fast to him; for that means life to you and length of days, so that you may live in the land that the LORD swore to give to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. (Deuteronomy 30:11-20, NRSV)

On June 12, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Second Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to June 8, Year One), comments were repeated with some revision and supplement from June 7, 2005 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 8, Year One); the comments are repeated here with editing and supplement:

This reading concludes Moses’ third discourse (speech) in Deuteronomy. The first paragraph (Deut. 30:11-14) states that the Israelites can obey the commandments, if they will. “Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away” (v. 11). The singular word “commandment” (mitswah) “designates the entire law which Moses delivers in his speech” (Christoph Bultmann, The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 154, on Deut. 30:11-14). But the point is “the accessibility of the law.

Whereas the expression ‘in your mouth’ refers to the regular repetition of the received law (cf. 6:7; Josh. 1:8), the expression ‘in your heart’ takes the internalization of the law even further than 6:6 does, cf. also Jer. 31:33-4. The scribe demonstrates the essential conformity of the divine law to the human being with the help of impressive poetic imagery. (ibid.)

The commandment, says Moses, “is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?’ ” (v. 12). It is not out of reach, so to speak. “Neither is it beyond the sea,” he adds, “that you should say, ‘Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?’ ” (v. 13) On the contrary, the commandment is at hand, and keeping it is very possible. “ No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe” (v. 14).

So Moses presents the people with a choice. “See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity” (v. 15). There is a promise for them if they obey God’s law. “If you obey the commandments of the LORD your God that I am commanding you today, by loving the LORD your God, walking in his ways, and observing his commandments, decrees, and ordinances, then you shall live and become numerous, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to possess” (v. 16). But on the other hand there are severe consequences for failure to obey. “But if your heart turns away and you do not hear, but are led astray to bow down to other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall perish; you shall not live long in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess” (vv. 17-18). Moses sternly emphasizes the choice. “ I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses” (v. 19a). Bernard M. Levinson calls attention to the repeated emphasis on heaven as witness, listing occurrences in “Deut. 30:19; 31:28; 32:1; Isa. 1:2; 44:23; Ps. 69:34; 96:11” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Deut. 4:26). “Choose life,” says Moses, “Choose life so that you and your descendants may live” (v. 19b), and he reiterates what that means: “loving the LORD your God, obeying him, and holding fast to him; for that means life to you and length of days, so that you may live in the land that the LORD swore to give to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob” (v. 20).

Rabbi J. H. Hertz comments on the words “therefore choose life” in verse 19:

Jewish ethics is rooted in the doctrine of human responsibility, that is, freedom of the will. ‘All is in the hands of God, except the fear of God,’ is an undisputed maxim of the Rabbis. And ‘to subject our will to the will of our father in Heaven’ is the great purpose of man’s life on earth. Josephus states that the doctrine of Free-will was maintained by the Pharisees both against the Sadducees, who attributed everything to chance, and the Essenes, who ascribed all the actions of man to predestination and Divine Providence. ‘Free-will is granted to every man. If he desires to incline towards the good way, and be righteous, he has the power to do so; and if he desires to incline towards the unrighteous way, and be a wicked man, he has also the power to do so. Since this power of doing good or evil is in our own hands, and since all the wicked deeds which we have committed have been committed with our full consciousness, it befits us to turn in penitence and forsake our evil deeds; the power of doing so being still in our hands. Now this matter is a very important principle; nay, it is the pillar of the Law and of the commandments’ (Maimonides).

Paul quotes this passage, but gives a Christian interpretation:

For Moses, the “word” that “is very near to you” is God’s law (Torah) as presented in Deuteronomy. For Paul, the “word” that “is near you” is “the word of faith that we proclaim” (Rom. 10:8). The law, the commandment, is “holy and just and good” (Rom. 7:12). It is “spiritual “Rom. 7:14). But God in Christ has done “what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do” (Rom. 8:3).

2 Corinthians 11:1-21a

Paul and the False Apostles

11:1 I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me! 2 I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I promised you in marriage to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by its cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough. 5 I think that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. 6 I may be untrained in speech, but not in knowledge; certainly in every way and in all things we have made this evident to you.

7 Did I commit a sin by humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I proclaimed God’s good news to you free of charge? 8 I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you. 9 And when I was with you and was in need, I did not burden anyone, for my needs were supplied by the friends who came from Macedonia. So I refrained and will continue to refrain from burdening you in any way. 10 As the truth of Christ is in me, this boast of mine will not be silenced in the regions of Achaia. 11 And why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!

12 And what I do I will also continue to do, in order to deny an opportunity to those who want an opportunity to be recognized as our equals in what they boast about. 13 For such boasters are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 So it is not strange if his ministers also disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness. Their end will match their deeds.

Paul’s Sufferings as an Apostle

16 I repeat, let no one think that I am a fool; but if you do, then accept me as a fool, so that I too may boast a little. 17 What I am saying in regard to this boastful confidence, I am saying not with the Lord’s authority, but as a fool; 18 since many boast according to human standards, I will also boast. 19 For you gladly put up with fools, being wise yourselves! 20 For you put up with it when someone makes slaves of you, or preys upon you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or gives you a slap in the face. 21 To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that! (2 Corinthians 11:1-21a, NRSV)

On June 12, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Second Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to June 8, Year One), comments were repeated with revision and supplement from June 7, 2005 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 8, Year One); the comments are repeated here with editing and supplement:

In this reading Paul uses irony to the point of sarcasm in defending himself and his ministry against the charges and claims of false apostles he calls “super-apostles (oiJ uJperlivan ajpovstoloi, hoi hyperlian apostoloi)” (2 Cor. 11:5). John T. Fitzgerald has called 2 Cor. “11:1-12:10 a heavily ironic ‘fool’s speech’; see 11:16-17, 19, 21; 12:11” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 2 Cor. 11:11-12:10). Paul asks the Corinthians to “bear with me in a little foolishness”: “I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness (ajfrosuvnh, aphrosynē ). Do bear with me!” (2 Cor. 11:1). This so-called “foolishness” of Paul, however, comes across as “God’s foolishness [which] is wiser than human wisdom” (1 Cor. 1:25). In 1 Corinthians Paul makes an ironic comparison of himself and Apollos with the Corinthian believers. “Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Quite apart from us you have become kings! Indeed, I wish that you had become kings, so that we might be kings with you!” (1 Cor. 4:8). Paul adds, “We are fools (mwroiv, mōroi) for the sake of Christ, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong” (v. 10). That ironic passage is a part of Paul’s attempt to overcome divisions within the Christian community at Corinth.

At the outset, in his “foolishness” (v. 1), Paul presents himself as a kind of shadchan (Jewish marriage broker or match-maker): “I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I promised you in marriage to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ” (2 Cor. 11:2). Sze-kar Wan says that with the words, “I promised you in marriage, Paul presents himself as father of the bride, that is, he is the founder of the church; see 1:19” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on 2 Cor. 11:2). The marriage relationship has been used as a metaphor for Israel’s relationship to God (Hos. 1-3; Jer. 2-3). According to Margaret MacDonald,

Paul makes use of a marriage metaphor to communicate the seriousness of the threat which has penetrated the community from the outside. . . . . Paul places himself in the role of father (cf. 12:14) of a virgin (the community) who is giving her in marriage to her one true husband (Christ). . . . Paul fears that the virgin daughter will be violated by a seducer. . . . Indisputable evidence is offered in v. 4 that the problem in the community is not only internal, but involves teachers from outside who preach a message that Paul understands to be in contradiction to his own. (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, on 2 Cor. 11:1-4).

The marriage metaphor shifts to the story of Eve being deceived by the serpent. Paul fears that the Corinthian believers will be led astray, separated from Christ. “But I am afraid,” he says, “that as the serpent deceived Eve by its cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (v. 3). It’s as though the false apostles play the role of the serpent in the garden of Eden, who twisted God’s instructions to the point of deception. “You will not die,” says the serpent, “for God knows that when you eat if it [the tree] your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:4-5). In the case of the Corinthian believers, the lie is the gospel of “another Jesus”: “For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough” (2 Cor. 11:4). “Unfortunately,” says John T. Fitzgerald, “Paul never discusses the different gospel of his opponents, and their identity is much debated. Some consider them Judaizers, others, Gnostics, still others, Hellenistic Jewish propagandists” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 2 Cor. 11:4). Wan says, “Another Jesus, different spirit, different gospel [is] reminiscent of language in Gal. 1:6-9. This would support the view that the super-apostles were Jewish-Christian missionaries; see also 12:11” (ibid., on vv. 4-5).

“I think,” says Paul, “that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles (oiJ uJperlivan ajpovstoloi, hoi hyperlian apostoloi)” (v. 5). “I may be untrained in speech ( ijdiwvthV tw:/ lovgw:/, idiōtēs tō(i) logō(i) ),” he adds, “but not in knowledge; certainly in every way and in all things we have made this evident to you” (v. 6). For “untrained in speech,” says Wan, see 10:10” (ibid., on 11:6); but whether the opponents’ criticism, “His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible” (10:10), is valid is another matter. Ben Witherington III says the opponents’

criticism of Paul involved his oral presentation of the gospel. They argued that he was an amateur, untrained in words, which here likely means ornamental rhetoric (v. 6). This may explain the abundance of rhetorical devices here. Paul proves he is capable of more than passable rhetoric. An idiōtēs was not an ‘idiot’ but an amateur or, as here, a person untrained in oral rhetorical performance. Paul says that despite the form, the content is good. In 10:10 he has contrasted his writing and his public speaking. Here he contrasts his knowledge of rhetoric and his public speaking. (Conflict and Community in Corinth, 1994, p. 447, on 2 Cor. 11:1-12:10)

As noted yesterday in comments cited from Ben Witherington III, Paul displays rhetorical skill. “God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom,” says Paul, “and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength” (1 Cor. 1:25). Perhaps we could compare Paul to Sam Erwin, the Watergate Commission Chairman, who said, “I’m just a country lawyer.” Someone once said, “When a man says ‘I’m just a country lawyer,’ watch out for your wallet.”

Apparently some were . . . complaining that Paul’s humble or servant approach was despicable (vv. 7ff.). The more well-to-do Corinthians likely had no high evaluation or appreciation for manual laborers like tentmakers. Couple this with Paul’s servant approach to ministry and there were surely some who saw Paul’s approach as beneath a true apostolos, as demeaning. He is forced to compensate here with a Fool’s Discourse. He must answer the fools according to their folly as Prov. 26:5 advises, “or they will be wise in their own eyes.” (Ben Witherington III, Conflict & Community in Corinth, p. 448, on 2 Cor. 11:1-12:10, esp. 11:6)

MacDonald says, “Paul offers a specific example of his behavi0or in order to defend himself against accusations concerning his authority and credibility” (op. cit., p. 1147, on 2 Cor. 11:5-15). She refers to Paul’s attitudes about money and the collection. Paul asks, “Did I commit a sin by humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I proclaimed God’s good news to you free of charge?” (2 Cor. 11:7). He has been accused of not being a true apostle because he exercised his right not to accept pay for his ministry (1 Cor. 9:4-6, 12). It must have come up again as an accusation of the false apostles. He responds by reminding them that he preached the gospel to them free of charge. “I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you. And when I was with you and was in need, I did not burden anyone, for my needs were supplied by the friends who came from Macedonia. So I refrained and will continue to refrain from burdening you in any way” (vv. 8-9). We note that Paul first worked in Corinth as a tentmaker with Aquila and Priscilla to support himself (Acts 18;2-4), but that “when Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia,” apparently bringing money to Paul from Philippi (cf. Phil. 4:10-20), “Paul was occupied with proclaiming the word, testifying to the Jews that the Messiah was Jesus” (Acts 18:5). According to Witherington,

Paul wanted the gospel of Christ to come to the Corinthians as a gift, not as goods for which they paid. Some opposition was likely coming from wealthier Corinthian Christians who were used to being benefactors and would likely look down on manual workers and servants. . . .  Paul would not take certain kinds of support from the Corinthians because of the elitist, benefactor attitudes and obligations that would come with such support. Such attitudes kept the Corinthians from seeing the Gospel as grace and Paul as their patron or benefactor. They were tied to much into the conventional [Greco-Roman] system of reciprocity to understand Paul’s approach. (Ibid.)

So the irony of Paul’s reference to his foolishness (v. 1) is revealed. His boast–presenting the gospel free of charge–is maintained. “As the truth of Christ is in me, this boast of mine will not be silenced in the regions of Achaia. And why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!” (vv. 10-11). “In the Roman world,” says Wan, “accepting support was to place the recipient (client) under the immediate obligation of the benefactor (patron). By not accepting Corinthian support, Paul is refusing the Corinthians the status and authority of patronage; by accepting Macedonian support, Paul could be seen as slighting the Corinthian congregation” (op. cit., on 2 Cor. 11:9).

“And what I do I will also continue to do,” says Paul, “in order to deny an opportunity to those who want an opportunity to be recognized as our equals in what they boast about” (v. 12). He will not be intimidated. “For such boasters are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ” (v. 13). And Paul describes his opponents with reference to Satan. “And no wonder! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his ministers also disguise themselves as ministers of Righteousness. Their end will match their deeds” (vv. 14-15). This, says Wan, is “characterization of Paul’s opponents” (op. cit., on vv. 12-15).

Paul apparently goes beyond mere refutation of charges against himself by attacking the false apostles, as noted above (vv. 13-15). In a new section, says Wan, “Paul compares himself to the false apostles” (ibid., on 11:16-12:10). “I repeat,” he says, “let no one think that I am a fool; but if you do, then accept me as a fool, so that I too may boast a little” (v. 16). “What I am saying in regard to this boastful confidence, I am saying not with the Lord’s authority, but as a fool; since many boast according to human standards, I will also boast” (vv. 17-18). According to Wan, “boast according to human standards [refers to] a different type of boasting from that of 1:12-14 and much closer to the boasting of 10:8). It’s almost as though Paul is saying, “Alright! I can play your game too, and beat you at it!” With sharp irony, he says, “For you gladly put up with fools, being wise yourselves!” (v. 19). And he adds a little ridicule. “For you put up with it when someone makes slaves of you, or preys upon you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or gives you a slap in the face” (v. 20). Fitzgerald says, “The list of afflictions has the dual purpose of castigating Paul’s opponents by describing their abusive acts and of shaming the Corinthians by means of mock praise (see 6:4; cf. 1 Cor. 4:8)” (op. cit., on v. 20). “To my shame,” Paul adds, I must say, we were too weak for that!” (v. 21). The earlier accusation of weakness becomes a badge of honor.

Luke 19:1-10

Jesus and Zacchaeus

19:1 He entered Jericho and was passing through it. 2 A man was there named Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was rich. 3 He was trying to see who Jesus was, but on account of the crowd he could not, because he was short in stature. 4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore tree to see him, because he was going to pass that way. 5 When Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, hurry and come down; for I must stay at your house today.” 6 So he hurried down and was happy to welcome him. 7 All who saw it began to grumble and said, “He has gone to be the guest of one who is a sinner.” 8 Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, “Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.” 9 Then 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 came to seek out and to save the lost.” (Luke 19:1-10, NRSV)

On November 26, 2008 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year Two), comments were repeated from June 12, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 8, Year One), when comments were combined with revision and supplement from June 7, 2005, (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 8, Year One), and from November 29, 2006 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year Two). The combined comments are repeated again here:

The story of Zacchaeus is reported only by Luke. Perhaps, as suggested yesterday, the healing of the blind man (Bartimaeus, Mk. 10:46) is on the approach to Jericho in Luke (Lk. 18:35), rather than “as he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho” (Mk. 10:46; cf. Mt. 20:29) “in order,” says Eric Franklin, “to accommodate the story of Zacchaeus that Jesus uses as a climax” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 951, on Lk. 18:35-43). In any case, we may compare the response of Zacchaeus to that of the last rich man, the rich ruler (Luke 18:18-23). Although almost back-to-back, the two stories stand in “striking contrast” (cf. Marion Lloyd Soards, NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Lk. 19:1-10). According to I. Howard Marshall, the placement of the Zacchaeus story, as

The final story in the long account of Jesus on his journey to Jerusalem is meant to be a climax in the ministry of Jesus, and it brings out several notable features which Luke considered important. It is a supreme example of the universality of the gospel offer to tax collectors and sinners with Jesus taking the initiative and inviting himself to the house of Zacchaeus. In doing so Jesus was certainly responding to the interest shown in him by Zacchaeus, but the decisive action, contrary to all that would be expected at the time, stemmed from Jesus. (The Gospel of Luke; A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC, 1978, p, 694 on Lk. 19:1-10)

At the outset, we are told two things about Zacchaeus: (1) “he was a chief tax collector,” and (2) he “was rich” (v. 2). His short stature, and his climbing the sycamore tree to see Jesus, are striking details in the story. They tell us something about his initiative and persistence–perhaps also his ingenuity. But the keys to his character, telling us who he was, are his career as a tax collector, as a “chief tax collector” (ajrcitelwvnhV, architelōnēs), no less, and his financial status: he was rich. The term “chief tax collector” (ajrcitelwvnhV, architelōnēs) is not found elsewhere in ancient Greek, though several other words compounded with ajrci- (archi-) are common: “high priest” (ajrciereuvV, archiereus), “robber chieftain” (ajrcilh/sthvV, archilēstēs), “chief shepherd” (ajrcipoivmhn, archipoimēn) of Christ (1 Pet. 5:4), “commander” (ajrcistravthgoV, archistratēgos), “leader/president of a synagogue” (ajrcisunagwgoV, archisynagōgos), “master builder” (ajrcitevktwn, architektōn), and “head waiter, butler” (ajrcitrivklinoV, architriklinos, Jn. 2:8-9) (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, p. 139, s.v. each word). Because the term “chief tax collector” does not appear elsewhere (to our knowledge 20 centuries later), Franklin suggests that the term “seems coined by Luke to make this episode climactic in Jesus’ dealings with the tax-collectors” (op. cit., p. 951, on Lk. 19:1-10). I should think that the Romans would have provided for supervision of their tax collectors. Why not through putting one of them in charge? According to Overman,

Tax collectors, the Roman system, known as “tax farming,” leased out the right to collect taxes (including customs fees) in a given area for a flat fee. The entrepreneur, usually a local aristocrat, who obtained this right would then try to collect more than the fee in order to profit by the arrangement, with obvious potential for abuse (Philo, Leg. Gai. 199). Actual collections were carried out by underlings, who would be under pressure to bring in as much as possible, and were despised by the populace; most of the references to tax collectors probably are to this class. (op. cit., on Mt. 9:10)

Overman’s description of the entrepreneur as a local aristocrat with underlings who would do most of the “dirty work” of collecting taxes fits Luke’s description of Zacchaeus. And Jericho was likely the location of an important customs office. According to David L. Tiede, revised by Christopher R. Matthews, “A chief tax collector played a role in the Roman bureaucracy that many Jews regarded as traitorous to their law” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Lk. 19:2).

As the story of Zacchaeus continues, he “was trying to see who Jesus was” (v. 3), and “ran ahead and climbed a sycamore tree to see him” (v. 4). But, as noted, at this point Jesus takes the initiative. “When Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him, ‘Zacchaeus, hurry and come down; for I must stay at your house today’” (v. 5). Zacchaeus welcomes Jesus with open arms, as it were. “So he hurried down and was happy to welcome him” (v. 6). Contrary to Zacchaeus joy, the onlookers express dismay. “All who saw it began to grumble and said, ‘He has gone to be the guest of one who is a sinner’” (v. 7).

At his home, Zacchaeus stands and declares his intentions to lead a new life. “Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, “Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much” (v. 8). Soards says that this is “a vow amounting to repentance” (op. cit., on v. 8). According to Tiede and Matthews, “Zacchaeus’s promise to give half to the poor is voluntary (cf. 18:18-25). I will pay back four times as much, fulfilling the strictest laws of restitution (see Ex. 22:1; Lev. 5:16; Num. 5:7)” (op. cit., on v. 8). Compare this ruling on stealing: “When someone steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, the thief shall pay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep” (Ex. 22:1a; cf. Lev. 6:5; Num. 5:6-7). When Nathan confronted David about the sin of adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah, using the story of the man who stole his poor neighbor’s lamb, David’s judgment, before realizing that it was about him, was, “As the LORD lives, the man who has done this deserves to die; he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity” (2 Sam. 12:5-6).

 But the vow to “give to the poor” “half of my possessions” goes beyond the requirements of the Mosaic law and demonstrates an attitude of true repentance and commitment to Jesus’ kingdom; whereas, the ruler was unwilling to respond to Jesus’ instruction, “Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me” (Lk. 18:22).

Although Zacchaeus would have been considered an outsider by the Jews, Jesus says to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he too is a son of Abraham” (v. 9). And he concludes the matter by saying, “For the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost” (v. 10). “The story of Zacchaeus illustrates earlier statements concerning tax collectors (53:29-32), the rich (18:25-27), and the lost (ch. 15)” (Tiede and Matthews, op. cit., on Luke 19:1-10).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net